Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2532 (MAD)

P. Kumaresan v. District Collector, Tiruvelveli

2021-09-23

R.SURESH KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Moo.Mu.A5/1593/2016 dated 28.04.2016 and quash the same.) 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Moo.Mu.A5/1593/2016 dated 28.04.2016 and quash the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to a complaint given against the petitioner as if that the petitioner had been indulging in illegal quarrying of earth at Survey No.375/1, which is a patta land at Seevalapeari Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, the second respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer had straightaway issued an order dated 28.04.2016, whereby he has imposed penalty of Rs. 17,16,325/- on the petitioner. 3. In this context, it is the case of the petitioner that, on the day itself, due to the complaint given to the police, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, at no point of time, according to the petitioner, order dated 28.04.2016 imposing penalty had been served on the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, since the petitioner happened to be the Village President of the Panchayat concerned, a proceedings was initiated by the Inspector of Panchayat, ie., the District Collector concerned under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and that proceedings was pending and was being conducted for sometime. 5. However, at any point of time, neither the show cause notice was issued before the order dated 28.04.2016 nor the copy of the said order had been served on the petitioner. 6. However, subsequently, the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on 27.05.2016 stating that as per the order dated 28.04.2016 of the second respondent, penalty has been imposed against the petitioner, which the petitioner has not paid. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which is also related to Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 as to why the petitioner shall not be disqualified under the said Section, in view of the pendency or commissioning of the alleged violation of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1959. Pursuant to which, a criminal case has already been filed against him. 7. Pursuant to which, a criminal case has already been filed against him. 7. Be that as it may, now the case of the petitioner is that, insofar as the order of imposing penalty against the petitioner dated 28.04.2016 is concerned, that order has been passed by the second respondent without putting the petitioner on any notice, though it is mandated and the copy of the said order has also not been served. Therefore, the petitioner, after getting the copy of the said order, has now come forward to challenge the same on two grounds that the copy of the order has not been served on him and primarily no show cause notice before passing the impugned order has been given against him. 8. Reiterating the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek indulgence of this Court against the impugned order. 9. However, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that on 27.05.2016, a detailed show cause notice had been given to the petitioner, which had been responded by the petitioner on 23.06.2016 and thereafter, since a writ petition had been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19084 of 2016, where interim order was granted on 15.11.2016, the issue could not be further persuaded. Therefore, it cannot be stated that no show cause notice was given against the petitioner. 10. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. It is a definite case of the petitioner that, the order impugned dated 28.04.2016 was issued without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. However, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that on 27.05.2016, a show cause was issued. 12. I have perused the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 as well as the show cause notice dated 27.05.2016. Admittedly, the impugned order is dated 28.04.2016 and only thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2016, that too related to the proceedings initiated under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 against the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice is noway related to the impugned order. 13. Admittedly, the impugned order is dated 28.04.2016 and only thereafter, the show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2016, that too related to the proceedings initiated under Section 205(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 against the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice is noway related to the impugned order. 13. Insofar as the validity of the impugned order is concerned, this Court has gone through the entirety of the impugned order, in fact, it is a short order, for easy reference, it is extracted herein: “TAMIL” 14. On perusal of the same, one can easily find that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice has been given by the second respondent against the petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of non-issuance of show notice and the violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 15. Moreover, insofar as the challenge of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has made averments in para 5 of the affidavit that on 28.04.2016, the date on which impugned order was passed, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, there had been no occasion for the petitioner to receive the said order, as the same has not been served on him. At no point of time, it had been served and belatedly, the petitioner came to know that such order was passed against the petitioner. Accordingly, he was able to get a copy of the impugned order belatedly, that is why, he belatedly challenged the impugned order. The said submission borne out of records by the petitioner has to be accepted. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that since the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. As a sequel, the matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that since the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. As a sequel, the matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, it is open to the second respondent or any other authority under the relevant provisions of the Rules or any other law for the time being in force to initiate fresh action against the petitioner after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner for the alleged excavation of earth from the patta land as referred to above and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, they can proceed to pass final order on merits and in accordance with law. 17. With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.