Judgment : By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. R. Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Sneha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the Resolution dated 25. 2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of accepting the resignation of the petitioner of the post of Vice President of Kilpatti Village Panchayat Board, Gudiyattam Panchayat Union, Vellore District. 4. According to the petitioner, he was elected as Vice President of Keelpatti Village Panchayat at Board through the election held on 210. 2006. Since then, he has been discharging his functions and executing his work as Vice-President of the Village Panchayat. It is his case that in 100 days work project, there were lots of misuse of Panchayat funds and several complaints were given to the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the controlling authorities of the Panchayat; but, they failed to take action and they did not even conduct any enquiry. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent viz., President of the Village Panchayat pressurized the petitioner to sign the cheque, as he has to sign the cheque along with the President. In this regard, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 25. 2009 to the 1st and 2nd respondents that if no action is taken against the 3rd respondent about the misappropriation of the Panchayat funds, there is no point in continuing as Vice President and therefore he is preparing to tender resignation with protest. The petitioner has stated that it is not a voluntary resignation, but it is a protest and conditional resignation. 4a. The petitioner would further submit that he has sent the protest resignation to all the respondents. The 2nd respondent had sent a communication dated 25. 2009 to the 3rd respondent forwarding the petitioner’s letter and instructed the 3rd respondent to pass a Resolution as per rule within 15 days and submit report immediately. The 3rd respondent convened urgent Panchayat meeting on 25. 2009 and passed a Resolution accepting the petitioner’s resignation, against which the petitioner has moved this Court with the present writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent convened urgent Panchayat meeting on 25. 2009 and passed a Resolution accepting the petitioner’s resignation, against which the petitioner has moved this Court with the present writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit. He has stated that in Kilpatti Panchayat, 100 days work (National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, hereinafter referred to as ‘NREGS’) is being executed with 100 to 150 beneficiaries of that Village and it is monitored by all level officers in the District. The work done by the beneficiaries is measured by the Union Overseer and check measured by the Union Engineer. The Zonal Officer makes frequent visit to the work site and inspects the work. The Block Development Officer (BDO), Assistant Divisional Engineer (RD), Project Officer, DRDA, Vellore made surprise visit to inspect the NREGS work and to avoid any misuse of funds, payment to the beneficiaries for every week is made through a Payment Committee. 5a. He would further submit that the Payment Committee comprises of members, viz., (1) the President (2) the Vice-President (the petitioner herein) (3) concerned ward member (4) one S.C. Ward Member (5) one representative from SHG – Federation and (6) two motivators from Graded Self Help Group. The petitioner’s complaint was thoroughly enquired with the beneficiaries and it was proved that there was no misuse of funds and the payment is made to the beneficiaries without any misuse. After the complaint, the petitioner himself had singed the second signature on the cheque meant for the payment to the beneficiaries after satisfaction that there was no misuse. The petitioner signed on the cheque four days after the date of President’s signature and the payment was made in the presence of the petitioner. Taking note of the workers’ full support/involvement to the Scheme (NREGS) and the workers’ refusal to do agricultural work related to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a complaint and tendered his resignation on his own. 5b. In the counter, it is further stated after the receipt of the resignation, the President of the Village Panchayat convened an urgent meeting on 25. 2009. The President served the agenda on 25. 2009 well before the meeting to all the members including the petitioner who tendered resignation. The President has placed the notice of resignation before the Panchayat on 25. 2009 and the petitioner was also present in the meeting. 2009. The President served the agenda on 25. 2009 well before the meeting to all the members including the petitioner who tendered resignation. The President has placed the notice of resignation before the Panchayat on 25. 2009 and the petitioner was also present in the meeting. The Village Panchayat in its meeting held on 25. 2009 unanimously accepted the resignation notice and a copy of the minutes was sent to the Inspector of Panchayat, i.e. the District Collector and Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner along with the report intimating the vacancy. Thus according to the 2nd respondent, all the rules and procedures were followed on the resignation notice. 5c. It is also stated in the counter that the 3rd respondent accepted the petitioner’s resignation according to the rules as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.35 Rural Development Department dated 22. 2009. After the receipt of the resignation notice on 25. 2009, the President of the Village Panchayat first submitted it to the BDO, Gudiyattam for further instructions. The Block Development Officer, Gudiyattam in Na.Ka. No.B3/1218/2009 dated 25. 2009 has instructed the President to convene a Village Panchayat meeting within 15 days and place the resignation notice before the Panchayat to obtain a resolution. Accordingly, the President placed the resignation notice before the Panchayat on 25. 2009 and the petitioner was also present in the meeting. The Panchayat members totally rejected the charges raised by the petitioner and passed a resolution to accept the resignation notice. The President submitted a copy of the minutes to the BDO (VP), Gudiyattam. The report of the minutes was subsequently submitted to the Inspector of Village Panchayat on 6. 2009. 5d. The 2nd respondent would further state in the counter that in the meeting held on 25. 2009, the petitioner has not contested the validity of the resignation but signed in the attendance register on 25. 2009. Further, he has not raised any objection on 25. 2009 and has not given withdrawal letter too. As soon as the resignation notice was accepted by the Village Panchayat, it was intimated to the District Collector, Vellore and the State Election Commissioner. It is his further submission that the notice of the urgent meeting of the Village Panchayat was served to the petitioner, who tendered resignation on 25. 2009. The Vice President has not raised any objection in the meeting held on 25. 2009. It is his further submission that the notice of the urgent meeting of the Village Panchayat was served to the petitioner, who tendered resignation on 25. 2009. The Vice President has not raised any objection in the meeting held on 25. 2009. The minutes of the meeting was sent to the Inspector, i.e. the District Collector, Vellore and the Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner about the vacancy. It is also stated that the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Election Commission in its letter dated 16. 2009 has instructed to conduct an indirect election to the post of Kilpatti Vice-President on 7. 2009. Under these circumstances, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in case of urgency, the President may convene a meeting on giving notice of not less than 24 hours and that the respondents have not followed Rule 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Quorum and Procedure for the convening and conduct of Meetings of Village Panchayats) Rules, 1999. He would further contend that there was no agenda and urgency has not been stated in the notice of meeting including the business to be transacted thereat and that the respondents have not followed the service of the notice of meeting and the agenda as per the Rules. 6a. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-compliance of the provisions for acceptance of the resignation is based on the decision of the 3rd respondent and therefore the Resolution has to fall and it cannot be given effect to and as per Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Resignation of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of District Panchayat, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of Panchayat Union Council and of the President, Vice-President and Members of Village Panchayat) Rules, 1999, it shall be the duty of the 3rd respondent to place the resignation notice at a special meeting within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. .7. .7. Per contra, Ms.Sneha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 would contend that it shall be the duty of the Panchayat President to place the resignation notice at a Special meeting of the Village Panchayat for its information, within 15 days of the receipt of the notice of resignation; if the President of the Village Panchayat does not for any reason, convene the special meeting, then the Inspector shall convene the same immediately; the notice for such meeting shall also be served on the person who tendered the resignation. According to the Government Advocate, these procedures have been followed by the respondents. .7a. Learned Government Advocate would further contend that the minutes of the meeting along with the agenda was served on the petitioner on 25. 2009 well before the meeting to all the members including the petitioner, who tendered the resignation and he has signed in the minutes of the meeting as well as the attendance register of that day, i.e. on 25. 2009 and the Village Panchayat has unanimously accepted the resignation of the petitioner. In the absence of any contest by the petitioner and having not raised any objection in the meeting on 25. 2009, the petitioner cannot be estopped from contesting the same by filing the writ petition. It is also her contention that the respondents have scrupulously followed the rules and the procedures laid down under the Act and thereby accepted the resignation of the petitioner and passed the Resolution in question and there is no infirmity in it. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials annexed in the typed set of papers and the relevant provisions and Rules. 9. A circumspection of the facts of this case would reveal that the petitioner was elected as Vice President of Keelpatti Village Panchayat Board on 210. 2006 and he had been functioning in that capacity till his resignation has been accepted. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation on 25. 2009 and thereafter the 3rd respondent intimated the same to the 2nd respondent on 25. 2009 and the 2nd respondent in his communication dated 25. 2009 instructed the 3rd respondent to pass a Resolution as per the Rules within 15 days and submit the Report immediately. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted a letter of resignation on 25. 2009 and thereafter the 3rd respondent intimated the same to the 2nd respondent on 25. 2009 and the 2nd respondent in his communication dated 25. 2009 instructed the 3rd respondent to pass a Resolution as per the Rules within 15 days and submit the Report immediately. In pursuance of it, the 3rd respondent convened a meeting on 25. 2009 and passed a Resolution accepting the petitioner’s resignation. .10. Rule4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Quorum and Procedure for the convening and conduct of Meetings of Village Panchayats) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) provides that in case of urgency, the President may convene a meeting on giving notice of not less than 24 hours clearly indicating the reasons of such urgency and the place, date, time of the meeting including the business to be transacted thereat. As per Rule 7 of the said Rules, the notice of meeting with the Agenda shall be served on a member following the procedures specified, viz., (a) by giving or tendering the notice of meeting in the member concerned in person; or (b) in case personal service could not be effected, by tendering in it to an adult member of his family; or (c) if no adult member of his family is also available for service, the notice of meeting shall be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due, or by affixing it on the conspicuous place of his last known address in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer of that Village. .11. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Resignation of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of District Panchayat, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of Panchayat Union Council and of the President, Vice-President and Members of Village Panchayat) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Resignation Rules’) reads as follows: .“It shall be the duty of the Chairman of the District Panchayat, the Chairman of Panchayat Union Council, the President of Village Panchayat, as the case may be, to place the resignation notice at a special meeting of the District Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council or Village Panchayat as the case may be, for its information, within fifteen days of the receipt of notice of resignation. If the Chairman of District Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council or President of Village Panchayat does not for any reason, convene the special meeting, then the Inspector shall convene the same immediately. The notice for such meeting shall also be served on the person who tendered the resignation. If the member concerned or Vice-Chairman or Vice-President does not contest the validity of his resignation or does not raise any objection at such a meeting, his resignation shall be deemed to have come into effect from the date of the meeting. The Chairman of District Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council or the President of Village Panchayat, as the case may be, shall send a copy of minutes of such meeting to the Inspector and Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner along with a report intimating the vacancy.” 12. In the instant case, after the receipt of the letter from the petitioner and no notice to the concerned authorities, the 2nd respondent has instructed the 3rd respondent, the Village Panchayat President to convene a meeting and accordingly an agenda containing the subject stating the urgency that the supply of drinking water and water facilities have been delayed in that Village and therefore, as per Rule 5 of the Resignation Rules, it shall be the duty of the Village Panchayat to convene a meeting and take a decision. It is seen from the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent convened an urgent meeting on 25. 2009 and passed a Resolution accepting the resignation of the petitioner within a period of 15 days. In the counter of the 2nd respondent, on whose instructions the 3rd respondent has convened a meeting, it is seen that a notice of meeting was sent to the petitioner on 25. 2009 along with the agenda stating the urgency and the petitioner has signed in the minutes of the urgent meeting as a first person. 13. A scrutiny of the entire records would reveal that the petitioner has neither contested the validity of his resignation nor raised any objection at the Special meeting and his resignation has been accepted by the Village Panchayat by passing an unanimous Resolution and it is not the case of the petitioner that the Resolution has been opposed by anyone. .14. A scrutiny of the entire records would reveal that the petitioner has neither contested the validity of his resignation nor raised any objection at the Special meeting and his resignation has been accepted by the Village Panchayat by passing an unanimous Resolution and it is not the case of the petitioner that the Resolution has been opposed by anyone. .14. A contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of urgency, the President may convene a meeting on giving notice of not less than 24 hours and that the notice of meeting which was served on the petitioner on 25. 2009 is less than 24 hours as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. A perusal of the material documents would reveal that the notice of meeting along with the agenda was served on the petitioner on 25. 2009 and the petitioner has signed in the minutes of the meeting held on 25. 2009. It is also seen that in view of the delay in supply of drinking water and water facilities in that Villages, there was an urgency to conduct a special meeting and accordingly, a specific agenda was drawn. Therefore, it is clearly construed that the meeting was in compliance of Rule 4(2) of the Rules. 15. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 7 of the Rules, the service of notice of meeting with the agenda has to be in accordance with the procedures prescribed for. In the instant case, the notice of meeting with the agenda has been served to the petitioner concerned and he has signed in the minutes of the meeting and it is in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained with, as the Resolution under challenge in this writ petition has been passed following the Rules contemplated therein and as per the duty and obligation caused on the 3rd respondent. Moreover, it cannot be faulted with as the petitioner himself has not contested the validity of his resignation and no objection has been raised to the passing of the said Resolution. 16. In all, this Court, on perusal of the entire material records and analysing the provisions contemplated under the Rules, is of the view that the Resolution dated 25. Moreover, it cannot be faulted with as the petitioner himself has not contested the validity of his resignation and no objection has been raised to the passing of the said Resolution. 16. In all, this Court, on perusal of the entire material records and analysing the provisions contemplated under the Rules, is of the view that the Resolution dated 25. 2009 passed by the 3rd respondent is in conformity with the legal provisions and the same is upheld. The writ petition deserves no merit for consideration and it has to be dismissed. In fine, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 are closed. Petition dismissed.