Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 185 (MAD)

M. R. Sridhar v. The District Collector & Others

2003-02-07

P.K.MISRA

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner has prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint Mr. Kamalanathan (subsequently impleaded as respondent No.6) as the President for Village Forest Committee and to allow the petitioner to proceed with the implementation of Tamil Nadu Forest Development Scheme for Manali village. 2. Under G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 8-8-1997, the Government has decided to implement “TamilNadu Afforestation Project”. It is contemplated that Village Forest Councils would be constituted and each Village Forest Council shall elect a Executive Committee. The members of the Executive Committee has to elect President from among themselves, who would also become the Ex-officio President of Village Forest Committee and the Forest Ranger would be the Member Secretary of the Executive Committee. The Forest Ranger is to facilitate the election process of the members and President of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is reasonable for day to-day activities of the Village Forest Committee. Clause 8 of the aforesaid G.O., relates to Monitoring and Clause 8.1 being relevant, is extracted hereunder :- “ 8.1. The District/Divisional Forest Officer concerned will monitor the functioning of the E.C. of the V.F.C. in his jurisdiction and send monthly report to the Conservator of Forests. He will also have the authority to disband the committees and order for reconstitution if in his view, the committees are not discharging their duties properly. He will do so only after giving adequate opportunities to the committee members, except the Member Secretary, who may be dealt with under disciplinary rules. He will also be the Appellate authority against the orders of E.C. expelling a member of E.C./V.F.C.” 3. The petitioner claims that he was elected as the President of the Village Forest Committee on 17.5.2001 in a meeting held in the presence of Forest Ranger. However, the other official respondents, namely the third and fourth respondents are implementing various schemes without consulting the petitioner, the President of Village Forest Committee, and other committee members. 4. In the counter affidavit it has been indicated by the respondents 2,3 & 4 in paragraph 3 : “ . . . the Petitioner herein initially helped us in forming the Village Forest Committee and was temporarily selected as V.F.C. President by the Executive Committee comprising of 18 members. This selection was not a Permanent one and hence it was not approved by me. . . the Petitioner herein initially helped us in forming the Village Forest Committee and was temporarily selected as V.F.C. President by the Executive Committee comprising of 18 members. This selection was not a Permanent one and hence it was not approved by me. The writ Petitioner while functioning the Village Forest Committee activities has not co-operated with the Committee. . .” It has been further stated in paragraph 4 : “ ... As the petitioner’s performance was not up to the satisfaction of the village peiople and they preferred complaints against him for his non-function. He is not able to perform his duties and also indulged in creating problems by misuse of this V.F.C. I respectfully state that on 14.08.2001 one Mr. Kamalanathan was elected as President and 24 as members. The election of President and others were conducted as per guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.342 E and F dated 8.8.97 and their names have been approved in the Micro Plan and with his consultation all the Work are carried out and completed to the full satisfaction of the superiors and village people.” 5. The aforesaid Kamalanathan on his own petition has been impleaded as a party and has filed a counter affidavit. He has stated in paragraph 5 as follows :- “ I submit that the petitioner has no longer remained to be a good president for the committee and he failed (to) carry-out his obligation towards our village and the Government. After experiencing the bad activities of the petitioner our villagers had voted against the petitioner for the post of President. Now, the petitioner no more the president of our panchayat and the village committee....” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid assertions makes it clear that the petitioner had been elected as the President of the Village Forest Committee. Even though it is asserted by the respondents 2 to 5 that the petitioner was temporarily selected, there is no such document or order produced before this Court. On the other hand the order signed by the Forest Ranger itself indicates that the petitioner had been elected. No doubt clause 8.1 of the G.O., which is already extracted, gives certain power to the District Forest Officer, but such power has to be exercised after giving show cause notice. On the other hand the order signed by the Forest Ranger itself indicates that the petitioner had been elected. No doubt clause 8.1 of the G.O., which is already extracted, gives certain power to the District Forest Officer, but such power has to be exercised after giving show cause notice. Merely because some allegations have been made, the District Forest Officer cannot proceed to remove a functionary of the Village Forest Committee or the Executive Committee without following the procedure indicated in clause 8.1 of the G.O.. 7. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner after being elected as the President has been lawfully removed from such office by following the procedure contemplated under clause 8.1.. Since the President is elected by the members of the Executive Committee, in the absence of any other provision, it is reasonable to assume that such members of the Executive Committee can also remove the President by subsequent resolution. In the present case, no materials have been produced before this Court to show that such a procedure has been adopted. 8. In such view of the matter, in normal course, I would have allowed the petitioner to continue as the President. However, the main intention under the G.O., is for the purpose of smooth running of the Village Forest Committee. Even though a person, who is elected as the member of the Committee or the President, has right to continue and to hold such office, the intention is to have a smooth running for the purpose of development. In the present case, from the materials available on record, it appears that subsequently another Committee has been formed of which respondent No.6 has been elected as the President. In this scenario of having two parallel committees, it cannot be expected that Village Forest Committee can function smoothly. Even though the petitioner has been elected as the President in May 2001, it is apparent that he has not been able to function because of the subsequent election of the respondent No.6. The office held by the petitioner even though is an elected office, is not an office of profit and no proprietary right is infringed. Even though the petitioner has been elected as the President in May 2001, it is apparent that he has not been able to function because of the subsequent election of the respondent No.6. The office held by the petitioner even though is an elected office, is not an office of profit and no proprietary right is infringed. Even though it is found that the respondents were not justified in not allowing the petitioner to function, keeping in view the wider interest for the purpose of development of schemes, it would be in the interest of justice to direct that a new Village Forest Committee and a new Executive Committee shall be constituted in accordance with the scheme and a fresh election shall take place for the post of the President. There is no embargo to consider the question of electing the petitioner or Respondent No.6 as the President of the Village Forest Committee and the Executive Committee. This direction for reconstitution may be done within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. Till such a date, the Committee headed by the respondent No.6 shall be allowed to function. The term of the reconstituted committee shall be for the balance period or till the completion of the scheme which ever is earlier. 9. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. WPMP.No.18612 of 2002 is closed.