Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed by the Panchayat Union through one of its Councillor seeking to quash the order dated 18.12.2004 by which the third respondent/District Collector directed the Commissioner to hand over 156 shops and vacant plots and other properties to the Tisaiyanvillai Town Panchayat/4th respondent herein. 2. The Commissioner Panchayat Union instead of handing over the properties as directed by the third respondent pursuant to the order of the first respondent Government made in G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996 is holding on to the same and had set up one of the Councillors to file the present Writ Petition. He also obtained an order of interim stay in W.P.M.P.(MD)No.4793 of 2004 on 30.12.2004. A vacate Stay Petition being W.V.M.P. (MD)No.l173 of 2005 was filed by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, an impleading petition was filed by one of the Ward Member of the Tisaiyanvillai Town Panchayat, and he got himself impleaded as the 5th respondent and had filed a vacate stay petition being W.V.M.P.(MD)No.99 of 2005. 3. With the consent of parties, the main Writ Petition itself was taken up for hearing. 4. Heard Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. V.Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 and Mr. Senthurpandian, learned counsel for R4 and Mr. R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for R5 and have perused the records. 5. After the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 was enacted, the Town Panchayats were brought within the purview of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities act 1920. Therefore, the Town Panchayats, which are situated within the territorial limits of a Panchayat Union were made as autonomous units and the Panchayat Unions were divested of its jurisdiction over the properties vest on the Town Panchayats which include shandies, markets, roads, bridges etc., and coming within the territorial limits of the Town Panchayats. 6. In order to resolve the disputes between Town Panchayats which are functioning under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the Panchayat Unions coming under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996. Pursuant to the direction given in the said G.O., the assets which lie under the jurisdiction of Town Panchayats and are maintained by them were directed to be transferred from the Panchayats Unions to the Town Panchayats for maintenance and management with immediate effect. 7. Pursuant to the direction given in the said G.O., the assets which lie under the jurisdiction of Town Panchayats and are maintained by them were directed to be transferred from the Panchayats Unions to the Town Panchayats for maintenance and management with immediate effect. 7. On behalf of the petitioner Panchayat Union, a Writ Petition was filed by an elected Councillor by name Arumugam (being W.P.(MD)No.2972 of 1997) challenging the said G.O.,. However, the said Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to the said Councillor to approach the Government. The Government on the representation made by the said Arumugam passed an order dated 21.3.2001 by stating that as already it had issued G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996 by which markets within the Panchayat Unions should be transferred to the Town Panchayats and therefore, the petitioner Panchayat Union Council cannot retain those properties. 8. Since the properties were not transferred by the Panchayat Union, another Writ Petition was filed by the 5th respondent before this Court being W.P.(MD)No.11920 of 2004 seeking for the transfer of assets belonging to the 4th respondent from the petitioner Panchayat union. However, this Court by an order dated 16.9.2004 directed the first respondent to consider the grievance of the 5th respondent. It was pursuant to this order, the District Collector was constrained to pass an order dated 18.12.2004, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. There is no quarrel about the transfer of other assets and the present dispute relates to the transfer of 156 shops for which ground rent is collected by the petitioner Panchayat Union Council. In fact, those 156 shops are situated within the territorial limits of the 4th respondent Town Panchayat. It was by an order dated 12.6.1993, the Panchayat Union Council permitted the shop keepers to put up temporary structures by paying ground rent. Since the weekly shandy was given to the Town Panchayat in the year 1998 itself by not handing over the right to collect ground rent from the 156 shops, revenue to the extent of Rs.2.02 lakhs was being deprived to the 4th respondent. 9. The petitioner Panchayat Union passed a Resolution No.81 dated 31.7.2001 once again seeking permission to retain the right to collect ground rent. 9. The petitioner Panchayat Union passed a Resolution No.81 dated 31.7.2001 once again seeking permission to retain the right to collect ground rent. They had relied on G.O.Ms.No.131, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 23.5.1997, which was passed with reference to Kulithalai Panchayat Union Council vis-a-vis Kulithalai Town Panchayat. It was directed by that G.O. that the community hall, marriage hall and carpentary and smithy workshops can be retained by the Panchayat Union. But in the same order, it was directed that public properties such as markets, roads, bridges etc., should be handed over to the Town Panchayat and a direction was also given to handover road, markets, bridges maintained by the Kulithalai Panchayat Union to Kulithalai Town Panchayat. 10. In the guise of considering the resolution passed by the writ petitioner Panchayat Union, the District Collector contrary to the Government Order and contrary to the orders passed in the Writ Petition ordered to keep in abeyance the handing over of the public properties pending for a further clarification from the Government. Thereafter a letter was written by the District Collector dated 6.8.2001 to the Director of Rural Development (the 2nd respondent) seeking certain clarification. In his order, he had blatantly took the side of the writ petitioner Panchayat Union Council without any justification and without regard to the orders passed by the Government. 11. The 2nd respondent wrote a letter to the first respondent dated 6.9.2001 and enclosed the proposal sent by the District collector. However, it was advised that the Panchayat Unions shandy can be given to the Town Panchayat but the 156 shops can be retained by the petitioner Panchayat Union Council. It is on the strength of this correspondence between the third respondent and the second respondent on the one hand and the second respondent and the first respondent on the other hand, the present Writ Petition had been filed. In fact, there is no lack of clarity in the earlier order of the Government with reference to the transfer of Town Panchayat properties coming within its territorial limits. 12. The order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996 is not only legally correct but also in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994. 12. The order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996 is not only legally correct but also in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994. The Panchayat Unions are not expected to maintain roads, bridges, markets (shandies) etc., and the Town Panchayat is the primary unit under the District Municipalities Act. It is an urban agglomeration and the only source for them to get revenue was by collection of rents. 13. By no stretch of imagination, the writ petitioner can stall the lawful possession and collection of revenue by the 4th respondent. The attempt made by the petitioner in filing the present Writ Petition is highly reprehensible. In fact, only a Panchayat Union Council can have a right to maintain a Writ Petition in its name as it has perpetual succession and seal and it is a body corporate. 14. The Panchayat Council can sue in its name represented by its Commissioner on the strength of a resolution made by a Panchayat Union Council. A Ward Councillor cannot maintain a Writ Petition in the name of the Panchayat Union Council. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on this sole ground. 15. Since the action of the Panchayat Union Council was being indirectly supported by the third respondent/District Collector in defiance of the Government Orders, the matter was heard at length. Therefore, the Court is not giving a disposal on technical ground. 16. Mr. K.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that G.O.Ms.No.131, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 23.5.1997 was in fact a modification of the earlier order in G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996. Therefore, they are eligible to have the benefit of the second Government Order. 17. In fact, the second Government Order has been issued only pursuant to a quaery raised in respect of Kulithalai Panchayat Union Council and Kulithalari Town Panchayat and it does not deviate from the earlier order of the Government. The second order, in fact, is far from supporting the case of the petitioner, it goes against the stand taken by the petitioner. The Panchayat Union Councils are entitled to retain their properties but they are not entitled to retain public properties such as markets, roads, bridges etc., which are exclusively to be maintained by the Town Panchayats. 18. The second order, in fact, is far from supporting the case of the petitioner, it goes against the stand taken by the petitioner. The Panchayat Union Councils are entitled to retain their properties but they are not entitled to retain public properties such as markets, roads, bridges etc., which are exclusively to be maintained by the Town Panchayats. 18. Attempt to make a distinction between G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996 as well as the impugned order passed by the Collector is not permissible and the District Collector being a subordinate functioning of the Government is bound to give effect to a Government Order. In fact, only after change of the officer in the post of the third respondent, the present impugned order came to be passed. This clearly shows that the previous Collector was very much supportive to the Panchayat Union Council. He was issuing communication contrary to the direction issued by the Government as well as the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. 19. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and is very much in consonance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act as well as the Governments direction issued in G.O.Ms.No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.1996. 20. Under the circumstances, the writ petitioner/Panchayat Union Council is hereby directed to hand over all the 156 shops to the 4th respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The Commissioner of the petitioner Panchayat Union Council is hereby directed to implement the order of this Court without fail and send a compliance report to this Court. 21. With reference to the loss of earning from and out of the ground rent collected from the 156 shops by the petitioner Council to the deprivation of the 4th respondent, the third respondent/District Collector is hereby directed to quantify the income derived by the Radhapuram Panchayat Union and after giving a credit to the expenditure involved in maintaining the shops, arrive at the income derived by the Panchayat Union Council and pass an appropriate order directing the Radhapuram Panchayat Union to hand over the amounts collected from and out of the 156 shops to the 4th respondent thereafter within a period of four weeks. 22. 22. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim stay already granted stands vacated. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.