Madras High Court Quashes Order Withdrawing Cheque Signing Power of Village Panchayat President in Panchayat Administration Case – Order Found Non-Speaking and in Violation of Natural Justice. Power under Section 203 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 Cannot Be Exercised Without Recording Reasons and Must Reflect Extraordinary Circumstances.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Madurai In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, the elected President of Nerur South Village Panchayat since 2019, challenged an order passed by the District Collector under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which transferred his cheque signing power to the Block Development Officer. The background involved political rivalry and allegations of maladministration. Earlier, on 28.04.2023, a similar order was passed but set aside by the High Court in W.P.(MD)No.15311 of 2023 on 28.06.2024 for violation of natural justice, with liberty to take fresh action. Subsequently, an enquiry notice dated 29.07.2024 was issued, and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Despite this, the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was passed, conveying that the explanation was considered and found unsatisfactory, and cheque signing power was handed over to the second respondent. The petitioner argued that the District Collector lacks power under Section 203 to abridge the statutory cheque signing power of the President and Vice President, which can only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances, and that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The respondents contended that the petitioner had engaged in various acts of maladministration, including delayed payment of wages, refusal to sign mandatory forms, and neglect of public services, and that after due consideration of his explanation, the order was validly passed. The High Court examined the impugned order and found it completely lacking in reasons; it merely stated that the explanation was unsatisfactory without any discussion. Relying on precedents such as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Sri. B.Sangana Basavanna Prasanna Kumar (2013) 2 SCC 391, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Balwinder Singh (2019) 13 SCC 576, and Kranti Associates Private Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496, the court reiterated that a reasoned order is the essence of natural justice. It held that the power under Section 203 is not a carte blanche and must be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances with due application of mind. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Collector to pass a fresh speaking order within two weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Speaking Order Requirement - Constitution of India, Article 226 and General Principles - Quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must contain reasons to show application of mind - Impugned order simply stated explanation considered and found unsatisfactory without any reasons - Held non-speaking order violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed (Paras 13-14).

B) Panchayat Law - Powers of District Collector under Section 203, Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Scope and Limitations - Section 203, Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - District Collector's power to withdraw cheque signing power is statutory but must be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances - Order must reflect application of mind and provide reasons for such drastic step - Court remits matter for fresh consideration with directions (Paras 13-16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, withdrawing cheque signing power of the petitioner, is legally sustainable?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to first respondent to pass a fresh speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within two weeks. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Law Points

  • Legal points not extracted
  • Non-speaking order violates principles of natural justice
  • Power under Section 203 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act
  • 1994 must be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances
  • Cheque signing power is a statutory right of President and Vice President
  • Administrative orders must be reasoned and reflect application of mind
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 339

W.P.(MD)No.21554 of 2024

2025-03-19

Justice L.Victoria Gowri

Citation not available

Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, Mr.P.Veera Kathiravan, Mr.S.Kameswaran

K.Manikandan

1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat, Karur, Karur District; 2.The Block Development Officer, Karur Panchayat Union, Karur District

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the order of the District Collector withdrawing the petitioner's cheque signing power as Village Panchayat President.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the first respondent.

Filing Reason

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing any reasons and therefore violative of natural justice, and that the District Collector lacked authority to take away his statutory cheque signing power.

Previous Decisions

In earlier writ W.P.(MD)No.15311 of 2023, this court set aside a previous order dated 28.04.2023 withdrawing financial transaction rights, on ground of violation of natural justice, with liberty to take fresh action.

Issues

Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner, was legal and valid? Whether the impugned order was non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: The District Collector lacks power to take away cheque signing power under Section 203; power under Section 203 is only for extraordinary circumstances; cheque signing power is statutorily conferred on President and Vice President and cannot be abridged; impugned order is non-speaking. Respondent: Petitioner failed to execute duties, delayed payments, refused to sign forms, ignored public complaints; earlier order was set aside only for lack of notice, but now proper notice was given; after considering explanation, impugned order was passed and it is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

An administrative order that withdraws a statutory right such as cheque signing power must be a speaking order containing reasons, failing which it violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. The power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is not unbridled and can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances with due application of mind and reasoning.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order does not contain any reasons to have arrived at the conclusion to transfer the check signing power of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. It simply says that the explanation was considered in detail and found not satisfactory. The power under Section 203 is not a carte blanche to be exercised at the whims and fancies of the Inspector of the Panchayat... It is a power vested only to be exercised under extraordinary circumstances. The order must reflect the application of mind and the reasons for taking such a drastic step of taking away the check signing power of the petitioner.

Procedural History

Petitioner elected President of Nerur South Village Panchayat in 2019. On 28.04.2023, first respondent passed order under Section 203 withdrawing financial transaction rights; petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.15311/2023; on 28.06.2024, High Court set aside that order for violation of natural principles with liberty to take fresh action. Enquiry notice issued on 29.07.2024; petitioner submitted explanations on 08.08.2024 and 20.08.2024. Impugned order dated 27.08.2024 transferring cheque signing power to second respondent. Present writ petition filed challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994: Section 203
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 296(b), Section 351(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Quashes Order Withdrawing Cheque Signing Power of Village Panchayat President in Panchayat Administration Case – Order Found Non-Speaking and in Violation of Natural Justice. Power under Section 203 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes University Notification Requiring Minimum 50% Marks in Each Theory Paper for MD Dermatology Examination — Directs Fresh Valuation of Answer Scripts. University Cannot Impose Additional Eligibility Criteria Beyond MCI...