Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 2. The Chairman of the Sholavaram Panchayat Union has filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings initiated by the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.1/2010/A1 dated nil.08.2010 and the impugned consequential notice of the second respondent in proceedings No.Va.Ko.A.Spl.No.(Panchayat)/2010/A1 dated 15.09.2010 for convening the meeting. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been elected from Ward No.4 contested against the 4th respondent and was further elected amongst the ward members as Chairman of the Sholavaram Panchayat Union in the election held in October 2006. The 4th respondent was one of the Ward Members elected from Ward No.14 and was defeated by the petitioner to the post of Chairman. The 4th respondent being a defeated candidate, developed ill will against the petitioner and indulged in all such activities of non-co-operation in implementing the welfare schemes. The 4th respondent has also challenged to see that the petitioner will be removed from the post of Chairman by hook or crook. Despite such rival groupism headed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has been functioning as Chairman and devoted himself in serving the electorate public ever since the date of his being elected as Chairman. The 4th respondent wielded influence upon the 2nd respondent, who, in collusion, resorted to drastic action for removing the petitioner by way of no confidence motion by abuse of power with an ulterior motive. As such, the Revenue Divisional Officer was arrayed as 2nd respondent in his official capacity and as 3rd respondent in his individual capacity. 3a. The petitioner would further state that the 4th respondent obtained signatures of other Council members on blank paper in the context of making representation before the Collector for welfare measure, but misused the same by filing it as a motion letter for removing the petitioner and submitted the same before the Collector and the Assistant Director of Panchayat. The said motion letter dated 27.01.2010 was routed through the office of the Assistant Director and ultimately, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued notice for convening a meeting of Councilors for consideration of the motion on 07.07.2010. 3b. The said motion letter dated 27.01.2010 was routed through the office of the Assistant Director and ultimately, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued notice for convening a meeting of Councilors for consideration of the motion on 07.07.2010. 3b. In the meantime, the 4th respondent had also filed W.P.No.11790 of 2010 for issuance of mandamus directing the authorities to take action on their alleged motion letter dated 27.01.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by virtue of the order dated 12.07.2010 after recording the factum of meeting scheduled to be held on 07.07.2010. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer served another notice dated 16.07.2010, proposing to convene a meeting on 28.07.2010 for consideration of the motion. Challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.16577 of 2010 to consequently forbear the respondents from initiating any action on the basis of No Confidence Motion letter dated 27.01.2010 against him. 3c. The Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.16577 of 2010 inter alia contending that the members have submitted another motion letter for removing the petitioner and the same was received by him on 03.08.2010. The petitioner would state that the respondents in the said writ petition having admitted the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 212 of the Panchayat Act and the vagueness of the motion letter dated 27.01.2010 and in view of the averments made in the counter of the Revenue Divisional Officer that another motion letter dated 03.08.2010 was submitted for removing the petitioner, conceded for setting aside the proceedings impugned in the above writ petition with liberty to proceed with the subsequent motion letter dated 03.08.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24.08.2010 quashing the notice dated 12.07.2010 with liberty to the 4th respondent to make a fresh complaint against the petitioner. 3d. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer chose to issue a communication containing the impugned notice calling for explanation on the motion allegedly moved by 16 members of Union Council, dated 03.08.2010 enclosed with the copy of letter dated 03.08.2010 said to have been submitted by the 4th respondent along with another person and the copy of the complaint letter allegedly moved for No Confidence Motion. The said communication along with aforesaid enclosures was served upon the petitioner on 03.09.2010 directing him to submit explanation within a weeks time. The said communication along with aforesaid enclosures was served upon the petitioner on 03.09.2010 directing him to submit explanation within a weeks time. Since the petitioner was undergoing treatment and was medically advised to take complete rest, he sought further time of 7 days, annexing the medical certificate on 09.09.2010. Further, on 15.09.2010, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the impugned notice inter alia stating that the perusal of the impugned show cause notice and the enclosures annexed therewith clinchingly establishes the ill motive and malafide exercise of power on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer inasmuch as the impugned show cause notice was signed on 02.08.2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, whereas, the motion letter is said to have been submitted on 03.08.2010. 3e. Therefore, the petitioner has detailed about the illegalities in drawing of such proceedings, such as receiving the said complaint letter from the 4th respondent along with another in the Village of Sholavaram; absence of official seal and the copy of the complaint letter served upon the petitioner contained only three ward members only as against the statutory requirement of 4/5 members (it is admitted as 3/5th) from the amended Section 212 of the Panchayat Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, with malafide exercise of power and material irregularities and against the constitutional scheme as underlined in Chapter IX of the Constitution of India. 3f. Further, on 17.09.2010, at about 5.00pm, the petitioner was served with the consequential notice dated 15.09.2010 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer proposing to convene the meeting on 29.09.2010 for ascertaining the views of the members as contemplated under Section 212(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The petitioner reasonably believes the same to be true that the said notice for meeting is an ante dated one appeared to have been drawn after receiving the explanation dated 15.09.2010 from him. In any event, the said notice dated 15.09.2010 proposed to convene a meeting on 29.09.2010 is ex-facie illegal for want of providing 15 clear days as mandated in sub-section 5 of Section 212 of the Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the proceedings are exfacie illegal and the same has to be quashed on the ground that it is contrary to the orders of this court and the provisions contemplated under Section 212 of the Act. 4. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the proceedings are exfacie illegal and the same has to be quashed on the ground that it is contrary to the orders of this court and the provisions contemplated under Section 212 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the No Confidence Motion letter dated 27.01.2010 is already set in motion and it is not quashed by this court in earlier orders. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot proceed with the second letter of No Confidence Motion dated 03.08.2010 to rectify the vagueness and other non-compliances of the mandatory requirements in the earlier letter dated 27.01.2010. He would contend that as per Section 212 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to receive a copy of the charges made in the complaint and only then, the Revenue Divisional Officer can proceed with it. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that No Confidence Motion was initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there is no irregularity or illegality and that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to proceed with it. According to him, the earlier orders of this court also made it clear that the notice of hearing was challenged except the notice dated 12.07.2010 and all other proceedings are not interfered by this court. Therefore, the letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010 is valid. 6. The 3rd respondent is present in the court and he also explained the same position. Before this court, he has submitted that he will follow the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Act strictly in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent while denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in his submissions, has strenuously contended that the required number of members have signed and a letter of No Confidence Motion has been submitted to the competent authority on 27.01.2010 and subsequently on 03.08.2010. While admitting that the letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010 is under motion, learned counsel would submit that the second letter of No Confidence Motion dated 03.08.2010 has also to be taken in to account in view of certain vagueness in the first motion letter. In order to comply with the same, the second letter of No Confidence Motion was made. In order to comply with the same, the second letter of No Confidence Motion was made. He has drawn the attention of this court that as directed by this court in its order dated 24.08.2010, the 4th respondent is prepared to make a fresh complaint and that also has to be taken into account. He would submit that till date, the 4th respondent has made a reminder along with a copy of the said order and he has not preferred any fresh complaint. 8. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents annexed to the typed set of papers and the records produced by the Additional Government Pleader and the relevant provisions of law. 9. A circumspection of the facts of the case would reveal that the petitioner has been elected as Chairman of the Sholavaram Panchayat Union in the election held in October 2006. The 4th respondent was one of the Ward Members elected from Ward No.14 and it appears that he has contested against the petitioner in the election of the Chairman for the Sholavaram Panchayat Union. Later on, the 4th respondent along with others have submitted a letter on 27.01.2010 addressed to the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayat and the said letter has been furnished to the competent authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate action. Further, the 2nd respondent, in its notice dated nil.06.2010 called for convening of a meeting of the members on the above letter of No Confidence Motion. Thereafter, another letter dated 12.07.2010 was sent intimating the convening of a meeting on 28.07.2010 at 11.00 am. The 4th respondent moved this court in W.P.No.11790 of 2010 for a direction to the authorities to take action on their alleged motion letter and this court disposed of the said writ petition by virtue of the order dated 12.07.2010 after recording the factum of meeting scheduled to be held on 07.07.2010. 10. In the meanwhile, the petitioner challenged two notices dated nil.06.2010 and 12.07.2010 in W.P.No.16577 of 2010 and this court, by an order dated 24.08.2010, after hearing the counsel on either side passed the following order : "(1) The notice, dated 12.07.2010, calling for a meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner, shall stand quashed. 10. In the meanwhile, the petitioner challenged two notices dated nil.06.2010 and 12.07.2010 in W.P.No.16577 of 2010 and this court, by an order dated 24.08.2010, after hearing the counsel on either side passed the following order : "(1) The notice, dated 12.07.2010, calling for a meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner, shall stand quashed. (2) The fourth respondent is at liberty to make a fresh complaint against the petitioner and the same shall be disposed of by the first respondent in accordance with law. (3) The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (4) Further proceedings on the basis of the complaint, if it to be made before the second respondent, shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the fresh complaint. " 11. Pursuant to the above order, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 02.08.2010. By producing the records, learned Additional Government Pleader, in the presence of the 2nd respondent, pointed out that the said show cause notice is dated 02.09.2010 and not 02.08.2010. He has also referred to the consequential proceedings dated 15.09.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent intimating the concerned persons about the convening of a meeting on 29.09.2010 at 10.00 am. 12. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition that the impugned proceedings are contrary to the orders of this court and the provisions of the Act, by pointing out that the letter of motion dated 03.08.2010 has been taken into account in respect of the fresh complaint without going into the first letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved that as contemplated under Section 212(3) of the Act, the complaint and the charges are to be furnished to him before proceeding with the meeting of No Confidence Motion against him. 13. The relevant provisions under Sections 212 of the Act read as under : "Motion of no confidence in chairman or vice-chairman of panchayat union council : (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the chairman or vice-chairman of a panchayat union council may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein. (2) Written notice of intention to make the motion, signed by members of the panchayat union council not less in number than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the panchayat union council, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made and a written statement of the charges against the chairman or vice chairman shall be delivered in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer of the division by any two of the members of the panchayat union council signing the notice. (3) A copy of the statement of charges along with the motion shall be caused to be delivered to the concerned chairman or vice-chairman by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the chairman or vice-chairman shall be required to give a statement in reply to the charges within a week of the receipt of the motion by the chairman or vice-chairman." 14. A careful analysis of the entire factual situation and the material documents would reveal that the letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010 as on date is in motion and it is not interfered by this court in any of its orders. Once the No Confidence Motion is set in motion, it has to be decided either way and therefore, it is the obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act by following the procedures contemplated and also by providing necessary documents and other materials to the person concerned, who is affected by the No Confidence Motion. 15. It is consistently pleaded before this court that the second No Confidence Motion letter dated 03.08.2010 has to be set in motion because there was vagueness in the first letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010. I am not convinced on the point raised above in view of the position that once a No Confidence Motion is set in motion, then the matter has to be decided by following the procedures contemplated under Section 212 of the Act. Therefore, the other No Confidence Motion letter dated 03.08.2010 and subsequent representations and other complaints further made can be taken as a material consideration while deciding the No Confidence Motion. But, it cannot be a letter of No Confidence Motion as stated in the first instance. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is under the obligation to proceed with the first letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010. But, it cannot be a letter of No Confidence Motion as stated in the first instance. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is under the obligation to proceed with the first letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010. It is also not the order of this court in an earlier occasion that the letter of No Confidence Motion dated 03.08.2010 has to be taken as No Confidence Motion and proceed further. 16. The impugned notices are only the notices of convening the meetings; unless it is shown to this court that the fundamental rights of the petitioner are violated or the impugned proc eedings are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, there is no scope for interfering with the said notices. When the notices are issued in furtherance of the procedures contemplated after taking into account all the earlier round of litigations, this court finds no reasons to interfere with the said notices. 17. In the light of the above and upon perusing the material documents and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and analysing the various provisions, this court is of the opinion that the 2nd respondent may be directed to proceed in accordance with law and accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to proceed with the letter of No Confidence Motion dated 27.01.2010, by following the procedures contemplated under Section 212 of the Panchayat Act and the provisions made therein, after furnishing necessary documents to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 212(3) of the Panchayat Act and proceed in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order is concerned only with the Chairman of the Sholavaram Panchayat Union and it will not have any bearing with any of the No Confidence Motion. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.