ORDER : The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records relating to an order bearing No.Na.Ka.No.1560/2024/B5 dated 6.11.2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent, Block Development Officer, Nallampalli Panchayat Union in Dharmapuri District and to quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, B.Basuvaraj, who is one of the nine members of Bandahalli Village Panchayat, it had been stated that on 15.08.2024, the 1 st respondent, the District Collector, Dharmapuri had convened a Grama Sabha meeting of Bandahalli Panchayat according to the petitioner without issuing any notice under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha (Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings) Rules, 1998. It is stated that the petitioner was not personally informed about the conducting of such meeting. 3. Thereafter the petitioner was able to obtain a copy of the proceedings of the decisions taken in the said meeting held on 15.08.2024. When the petitioner read the proceedings he found that Agenda No.25 was about construction of a new building at Bandahalli for housing the Panchayat Office of Bandahalli Panchayat. The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by such decision to construct a new Panchayat Office. Claiming that since the resolution had been passed in a meeting for which the notice was not served on the petitioner and therefore that the meeting was held without due authority, the writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the subsequent grant of the funds for construction of the Panchayat building for Bandahalli Panchayat Union Office. 4. By the impugned order, the 2 nd respondent had sanctioned necessary funds for construction of the Panchayat Office Building for Bandahalli Panchatyat Union. It was under those circumstances, the writ petition was filed. 5. This Court had not granted any interim order and it is informed that the construction had commenced and is practically completed as on date. The petitioner cannot claim ignorance or proclaim innocence of a meeting which he was expected to attend and more over he had a duty to attend and if he had objections, to raise objections in such meeting. The petitioner cannot claim ignorance or proclaim innocence of a meeting which he was expected to attend and more over he had a duty to attend and if he had objections, to raise objections in such meeting. He cannot come to court and cannot claim ignorance and innocence by stating that since he had not been individually served he had not attended the meeting and later seek to question the resolution passed by the majority of the members who actually attended the meeting. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the respondents however produced documents to show that public notice was issued for calling for the meeting. The resolutions which had been passed in the said meeting had also been passed. Resolution No.25 was specific about the construction of the Village Panchayat Office. 7. The Vice President of the Village Panchayat had filed WMP No.42597 of 2024, seeking to implead himself as a further party in the writ petition. Though orders have not been passed in the impleading application, the learned counsel had advanced arguments. The learned counsel stated that the notices had been properly issued and there had been no violation of any of the rules regarding calling of the meeting. The learned counsel further stated that the resolution had been passed after following the due procedure. It was also contended that the construction of the building had commenced and had proceeded to a substantial extent and that therefore the balance of convenience is in favour that the panchayat building should be constructed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there would a law and order problem if the building is completed. He raised objections for construction of the building even though it had commenced and had practically finished as on date. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. 10. The petitioner had been elected by the general public to be a member of the Village Panchayat at Bandahalli in Nallampalli Taluk in Dharmapuri District. Having been elected, there was a duty caused on him to attend meetings called by the Village Panchayat. He always as an option to stay at home and relax by himself. But the duty to attend is predominant. Having been elected, there was a duty caused on him to attend meetings called by the Village Panchayat. He always as an option to stay at home and relax by himself. But the duty to attend is predominant. He cannot claim ignorance of a meeting which is conducted in his own Panchayat Union, in his own area, in his own Taluk and conducted on for the benefit of the general public who had elected him as a member. If he had failed to attend the meeting then he had only let down the trust which had been reposed on him while he was elected as a member of the Panchayat. 11. At any rate, the petitioner claims ignorance of the calling of the meeting. But the documents produced reflect otherwise. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner in WMP No.42597 of 2024, and the learned Additional Advocate General had produced documents to show that the Grama Sabha had issued notice inviting the general public to attend the Grama Sabha Meeting to be held on 15.08.2024. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out Rule No.2 of the Rules which stated that meeting should not be conducted on a public holiday but at the same time clarified by stating that a regular direction had been issued that on the Independence day every year the Grama Sabha across the State must be convened. Even if the petitioner had no knowledge of this specific meeting, as a member, he should have therefore known that on 15.08.2024, whether invited or not there would be a Grama Sabha Meeting and that he was obliged to attend the said meeting. Therefore, it is poor argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner that he was not unaware of the meeting. It is not based on proper instructions given by the petitioner to the learned counsel. 13. As a matter of fact, my attention is also drawn to yet another writ petition which had been filed in WP.No.34910 of 2024 by P.Amudha, who is yet another ward member of the same Panchayat. The petitioner and P.Amudha apparently had come to an understanding. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court. P.Amudha had gone one step further and filed WP.No.34910 of 2024 as a Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench. The learned counsel appeared for both the writ petitions. The petitioner and P.Amudha apparently had come to an understanding. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court. P.Amudha had gone one step further and filed WP.No.34910 of 2024 as a Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench. The learned counsel appeared for both the writ petitions. Therefore, even if instructions had not been properly given, the learned counsel should have been aware that the proceedings before the two separate Courts are practically on the same relief. The relief sought in WP.No.34910 of 2024 was also in the nature of a Mandamus to decide a representation given which representation was that the new panchayat office should not be built without following due procedure. Effectively, in both the writ petitions the relief centres around the decision taken to construct a new panchayat building. The fact that WP.No.34910 of 2024, is still pending before the Division Bench had not been disclosed by the petitioner in his affidavit and even if that particular writ petition had been filed subsequently, the petitioner had a duty to file an additional affidavit before this Court informing about the filing of that particular writ petition. 14. The main thrust of argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice had not been served in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha (Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings) Rules, 1998. But documents reflect otherwise. 15. Rule No.3 provides for the manner in which a notice should be served The Rule is as follows: 3. Notice .- For holding meeting of the Grama Sabha not less than seven clear days notice prior to the date and time of the meeting and of the subjects to be deliberated shall be given in manner specified below- (a) by beat of drum in all the habitations of the Village Panchayat announcing the place, date, hour and agenda of the meeting; (b) by a written intimation of the meeting to be displayed by a affixture in the office of the Village Panchayat and in a few other conspicuous public places such as school building, noon-meal centre, television room, village temple, over-head tank and so on; and (c) a copy of the notice and the agenda shall be sent to the Inspector not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting. 16. 16. It had to be served by way of beat of drums, by written intimation to be displayed in the office of the Village Panchayat and a copy of the notice and agenda shall be sent to the Inspector of Panchayats before the date of the meeting. 17. In the documents now produced, a copy of the notice is enclosed. It is seen that it is a general announcement to the general public to attend the meeting. It must be again reiterated that the meeting was scheduled on 15.08.2024, wherein whether there is notice or not, the Grama Sabha must convene owing to that particular date being the Independence Day of this Country and owing to the direction issued that on Independence day every Grama Sabha must convene a meeting. 18. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had taken a conscious decision not to attend the meeting. He cannot plead ignorance of the meeting. Pleadings stating that he was ignorant about the meeting and rejected by this Court. If he says that he was not aware of the said meeting then he is not fit to continue to be as a member of the Council. In the meeting which was conducted, resolutions had been passed. Copies of the resolutions had been produced before this Court. 19. Resolution No.25 is very specific about this particular issue which is before this Court namely about construction of the village panchayat building. There is no reason to presume that the petitioner would not be permitted to enter into that particular building after it is constructed. He has a right to occupy a chair in that particular building. 20. The writ petition appears to be motivated by extraneous factors. The Court will necessarily have to reject such factors and focus only whether proper procedure was followed and whether the resolution was passed and whether thereafter, the funds had been allocated in the manner known to law. 21. The meeting had been convened in accordance with the Rule. Thereafter resolutions had been passed. The order of the Collector shows that it had been communicated to all concerned and thereafter the Block Development Officer had put up the proposal. The Collector had sanctioned the funds. The Block Development Officer had sanctioned the project work. The funds had also been allocated. The work had commenced. It is now more than half way completed. The order of the Collector shows that it had been communicated to all concerned and thereafter the Block Development Officer had put up the proposal. The Collector had sanctioned the funds. The Block Development Officer had sanctioned the project work. The funds had also been allocated. The work had commenced. It is now more than half way completed. The petitioner is indulging in an exercise in futility to somehow or the other, for reasons which are not understandable to this Court to prevent the construction of the building. This building is for benefit of all the people. 22. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the building is put up in a central place close to other Government Officer and the Government Hospital and therefore all officials would be able to come over to express their grievances or views on public issues before the Village Panchayat. It is stated that the building is now put in a centralised location. 23. The contentions raised by the learned counsel that no proper notice was given is refuted by the learned Additional Advocate General who pointed out that it was attempted to specifically serve the notice of the meeting on the petitioner by one Doraisamy on 14.12.2024, even though that procedure was not required. The petitioner had however refused to receive the said notice. It is therefore clear that the petitioner had knowledge about the meeting and with knowledge had not come over to attend the meeting. If he had any grievance, he should have participated in the meeting, and as an elected representative, raise his objections in the meeting. If he was not prepared to raise objections during the course of meeting then he should not have, in the first place put up his name to be one of the candidates for the election. 24. I find no reason to hold that there is violation of any of the procedure. The District Collector had followed all the requisite procedure before allocating the funds. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the resolution had not been put up before the Village Panchayat. The records reveal otherwise. 25. 24. I find no reason to hold that there is violation of any of the procedure. The District Collector had followed all the requisite procedure before allocating the funds. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the resolution had not been put up before the Village Panchayat. The records reveal otherwise. 25. On the reasons stated and particularly on the ground that another members had filed writ a petition in W.P.No.34910 of 2024, and it is evident that the petitioner and the writ petitioner in WP.No.34910 of 2024 are indulging in forum shopping by moving from one Court to another Court hoping that some interim order would be passed, I am not prepared to grant any leniency to the petitioner. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Village Panchayat for indulging in this frivolous writ petition. The District Collector may recover the costs if not paid on or before 28.02.2025, through the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Orders had been passed in this writ petition after reference to WMP No.42597 of 2024. The said application stands closed. The petitioner therein is not formally impleaded as a party to the writ petition. However arguments of the learned counsel had been heard. 26. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.