(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 viz, GO(N).No.375, Department of Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Na.Ni.5(2) passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash GO(N).No. 375, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Na.Ni.5(2) Department dated 07.11.2025 wherein the petitioner has been removed not only from the post of Chairman of third respondent Municipality but also from the post of Councillor of the 11th Ward of the said Municipality.

(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

2. The petitioner herein was elected as 11th Ward Councillor of Usilampatti Municipal Council on 22.02.2022. In the internal election process, she was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Council on 04.03.2022. On 22.10.2024, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice by the first respondent invoking Section 52(2) of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998 calling upon her to offer her explanation why action should not be initiated as against her. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 06.11.2024. On 18.11.2024, the first respondent had called for para-wise remark from the second respondent with regard to the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner.

3. The para-wise remarks were submitted by second respondent to the first respondent on 27.02.2025. Based upon the explanation and para-wise remarks submitted by the second respondent, the first respondent had issued G.O(N).No.41, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply Department dated 26.03.2025 removing the petitioner not only from the post of Chairman of the third respondent Municipality but also from the post of 11th Ward Member.

4. The order of removal was put to challenge by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.12614 of 2025. After considering the submissions made on either side, the writ Court was pleased to allow the writ petition setting aside the Government Order and remitting it to the file of the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent was directed to consider the explanation offered by the writ petitioner on 06.11.2024 and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petition.

5. In compliance with the order of this Court, the first respondent has issued a fresh show cause notice on 02.09.2025 calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation why action should not be initiated as against her invoking Section 52 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998. The writ petitioner had submitted her explanation on 19.09.2025 and another explanation was submitted on 26.09.2025. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent had issued the present impugned order on 07.11.2025 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairmanship of the third respondent Municipality and also from the post of 11th Ward Councillor. The said order was published in the gazette on 07.11.2025. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the first show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 22.10.2024 calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation for five charges. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the first respondent has passed an order on 26.03.2025 removing the petitioner from the post of Chairman as well as 11th Ward Councillor. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and thereafter, a fresh show cause notice was issued on 02.09.2025. The second show cause notice also referred to the first show cause notice dated 22.10.2024. According to him, the new show cause notice reveals only three charges as against the writ petitioner instead of five charges that was mentioned in the first show cause notice.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that in the show cause notice, the allegation with regard to the post of Chairman alone are made. However, the petitioner has been removed not only from the post of Chairmanship but also from the post of 11th Ward Councillor. In fact, no allegations have been made as against the writ petitioner as 11th Ward Councillor. Even though, the said infirmity was pointed out by this Court while allowing W.P.No.12614 of 2025, the same had not been rectified.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had further submitted that in W.P.No.12614 of 2025, this Court has pointed out that the non-supply of notings /reference of the second respondent which is relied upon in the impugned order, vitiates the order of removal. However, the said document was not furnished to the writ petitioner even along with fresh show cause notice.

9. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that in the impugned order, the first respondent has not assigned any reason whatsoever for disqualifying the petitioner from the post of 11th Ward Councillor. The order being a non-speaking order is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 relied upon Section 52 of the Act and submitted that the said provision enable the Government to remove the Councillor as well as the Chairperson. Therefore, the show cause notice issued on 22.10.2024 is a consolidated one covering the allegation as against the writ petitioner not only as a Chairperson but also as the Ward Councillor. He had further submitted that the petitioner willfully omitted to carry out the provisions of this Act and it has been proved that the petitioner has abused the power vested in her.

11. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that the show cause notice issued prior to the removal and the explanation offered by the writ petitioner was taken into consideration and only thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed. He had further submitted that when the allegations as against the writ petitioner in her capacity as a Chairperson have been proved, she would not be entitled to continue as a Ward Councillor also. Therefore, the impugned order passed in a consolidated manner invoking Section 52(2) of the Act is clearly in consonance with the provisions of the Act. He also relied upon Section 37(1)(i) of the Act and contended that the definition of elected Councillor would also include the Chairperson. In such circumstances, when a Councillor is removed from the post of Chairperson, automatically he/she would be removed from the post of Councillor also.

12. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that no independent show cause notice or allegation need be made as against the Chairperson for removing him or her from the post of Ward Councillor. He had further stated that the Councillor is directly elected by the general public and by way of internal selection among the elected Councillors, the Chairperson is elected. In such circumstances, when the allegation as against the writ petitioner stood proved, the question of petitioner continuing as a Ward Councillor would not arise. Hence, a separate show cause notice to remove the petitioner from the post of Councillor is not necessary and it would only be superfluous.

13. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the petitioner in the grounds of writ petition has not questioned about non-furnishing of documents and has not contended that it is a non-speaking order. In such circumstances, such a ground cannot be raised at the time of arguments. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition.

14. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

15. The writ petitioner herein who is a Chairperson and also a Ward Councillor of the 11th Ward of the third respondent Municipality was initially removed from these posts by way of an order passed by the first respondent herein on 26.03.2025. The said order was put to challenge in W.P.No.12614 of 2025 before the Principal Bench. The writ petition was allowed on the following grounds:

               a).The non-supply of the Notings/Reference of the second respondent, relied upon in the impugned order, vitiates the same as it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioners, an opportunity to controvert the same. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

               b) In the impugned order, absolutely no reasons are assigned for rejecting the petitioners' explanation to the charges/allegations levelled against them. Therefore, the impugned orders suffers from the vice of being non-speaking. Hence, the impugned order cannot cannot be sustained.

               c) Under the impugned order, the petitioner was not only removed from the post of Chairperson but also from the post of Councillor for which removal, there was no show cause notice issued, calling for explanations. Therefore, the impugned Government Order is vitiated for total non-application of mind. Since the respondents failed to note that the petitioners in the said writ petitions were holding dual posts of Chairperson/Zonal Chairman as well as the basic post of Ward Councillors, while removing them from the basic post of Ward Councillor, the respondents ought to have issued show cause notice and failure to issue the same, vitiates the impugned Government Orders.

16. Based upon the above said grounds, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. A direction was also issued to the first respondent to pass a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

17. The order of the writ petition was not put to challenge by the first respondent and on the other hand, the order of the writ Court has been accepted and a fresh show cause notice has been issued by the first respondent on 02.09.2025.

18. Now let us consider whether the vitiating factors pointed out by the writ Court while setting aside the previous impugned order have been rectified by the respondents while issuing the present impugned order or not.

19. In W.P.No.12614 of 2025, the writ Court has pointed out that the non-supply of reference of the second respondent would vitiate the impugned order as it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner by an opportunity to controvert the same. While issuing a fresh show cause notice on 02.09.2025, there is no reference about enclosing a copy of the reference of the second respondent. Grounds have been raised in Ground Nos.xiv and xxii to the effect that the copies of the statement or materials have not been furnished. However, the said fact has not been controverted in the counter filed by the third respondent.

20. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the explanation offered by the writ petitioner has been extracted and the reasons have been assigned by the first respondent. Therefore, the said contention on behalf of the petitioner that the order is a non-speaking order, is liable to be rejected.

21. The writ Court while allowing W.P.No.12614 of 2025 has clearly pointed out that when the petitioner is holding dual posts of Chairperson as well as Ward Councillor, a separate show cause notice ought to have been issued for removing the petitioner from the post of Ward Councillor also. The issuance of consolidated order indicates total non-application of mind. This vitiating factor pointed out while setting aside the previous removal order has not been rectified while passing the present impugned order. Again, order has been passed removing the petitioner not only from the post of Chairperson but also from the post of Ward Councillor.

22. The learned Additional Advocate General had contended that since the petitioner is holding the post of Chairperson only by virtue of her post as Councillor, by removing her from the post of Councillor, no separate show cause notice is required. This Court is not able to appreciate this submission. When a Councillor is removed from the said post, he or she would automatically get removed from the post of Chairperson, in view of the fact that the post of Chairperson is held only on the strength of the post of Ward Councillor. However, when the allegations are made as against the Chairperson and he or she is sought to be removed from the said post, he or she cannot be removed from the post of Ward Councillor also, unless specific allegations are made that he or she had committed misconduct as a Ward Councillor.

23. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 22.10.2024 clearly reveals that all the allegations as against the petitioner are in the capacity as Chairperson. Not a single allegation has been made as against the writ petitioner in the capacity as Ward Councillor. Even though this Court has pointed out in the first found of litigation that unless a separate show cause notice is issued pointing out the allegation as against the Ward Councillor, the order would get vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind, the said vitiating factor has not been rectified even under the present impugned order. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the present impugned order also suffers from vice of non-application of mind.

(D).Conclusion:

24. In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent herein for passing appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.