The Madras High Court in the case Annalakshmi v. The District Collector and others observed and has stated that even though there can be differences between elected representatives, thus, they should have worked together for the benefit of the people.
The bench headed by Justice CV Karthikeyan in the case observed wherein the petition was moved by one Panchayat President of Pattakurichi Village, Tenkasi Taluk, challenging an order of the District Collector. The court in the case noted that the collector had passed the impugned order which being pursuant to his emergency powers as it has been stated under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act since the President and the Vice president were at loggerheads with each other.
The court in the case observed that there being the differences within the family and they also have to be kept aside and the elected representatives must work for the benefit of the villagers. Unfortunately, if in case they did not do, so either it is as the President or as the Vice President in the case.
Further, the court in the case observed that the President was constantly in conflict with the Vice President who was also her family member and the said court after perusing the impugned order was satisfied that the elected representatives had not even provided the basic amenities to the villagers and that necessary works were not being carried out.
The court in the case observed and took the note of the fact that when complaints were made regarding the non-performance of work, thus, the meeting was conducted and the collector in the case passed the impugned order wherein it directed that the expenses for the execution of work be paid by the person having custody of Village Panchayat Fund.
The court while considering the fast and circumstances of the case stated that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and there was an inquiry conducted. Thus, the president and the Vice President only spread animosity being within the Panchayat, the District Collector, as the Inspector of Panchayats, has every right in order to step in and to pass necessary orders rectifying such attitude.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea. The counsel, Mr.R.Murugappan appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R1, R2, R4 and R5 Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R3 represented the respondent.