CRP PD/2063/2002 of C.PANDIYAN Vs G.PANNEERSELVAM on 20 December 2002

:J U D G M E N T

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the DistrictMunsif, Ariyalur allowing the respondent to implead himself as a party in thesuit, O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalurchallenging the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner, Ariyalur,Panchayat Union as to why he should not be held disqualified to be a member ofthe Panchayat as per the Panchyats Act, 1994. The respondent herein was oneof the persons contested in the Panchayat Election. Even at the initialstage, the respondent raised an objection that the petitioner herein wasdisqualified, inasmuch as his wife was one of the registered contractors underthe Panchayat which is a disqualification to any person to contest theelection. But that objection was rejected. Subsequently, the petitionerherein was elected as a member of the Panchayat. Thereafter, the respondentherein gave a petition to the Commissioner of Panchayat stating that thepetitioner should be disqualified exercising the power conferred on theCommissioner of Panchayat Union. Inasmuch as no order was passed on thatrepresentation by the Commissioner of Panchayat, the respondent herein movedthe High Court in W.P.No.21027 of 2001, dated 2.11.2001. This Court afterhearing the respondent passed an order directing the Commissioner of Panchayatto dispose of the representation made by the respondent after hearing them.Thereafter, the Commissioner of Panchayat issued notice of hearing of both thepetitioner and the respondent and thereafter decided to issued the impugnedshow cause notice. The petitioner herein filed the above suit exercising his right conferred under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchyat Act challengingthe validity of the show cause notice. At this stage, the respondent hereinfiled an application to implead himself as a party in the suit and that anapplication was allowed by the District Munsif. Aggrieved by that order, thepresent C.R.P. has been filed. In this C.R.P., the respondent has also filedcaveat.

2. Heard both the petitioner and respondent/caveator. The suit hasbeen filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by theCommissioner in that proceedings, the respondent has no locus standi tocontest. Merely because the show cause notice was issued in pursuance of thesteps taken by the respondent, it does not give any right to him to contestthe issue which is exclusively between the Commissioner of Panchayat Union andthe petitioner herein. At the most, the respondent can only assist theCommissioner of Panchayat Union officials. Therefore, in a suit between theelected representatives of the Panchayat and the Commissioner of PanchayatUnion, no person has got any right to intervene and to resist the claim of anyof them. Therefore, the order passed by the District Munsif allowing thepetition to implead the respondent as party is not legally sustainable andhence, it is set aside.

3. Since this is a matter between elected member of the Panchyat andthe Commissioner of panchayat Union, the District Munsif is directed todispose of the matter expeditiously.

4. In the result, the revision is allowed. No costs. Consequently,C.M.P.No.17274 of 2002 is closed.

20.12.2002.Index: YesWeb site: Yesvs