W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.06.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 AND Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 AND C.M.P.Nos.28713,28732,27737 & 27739 of 2025 1. M. Rajakamalhasan S/o. K. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Sivasakthi Nagar, Sindhu Matric School Opp. Byepass Road, Kodumudi (TP), Erode District. 2. S. Muniraj S/o. Sivampillai, Siva Parvathi Illam, MGR Nagar, Byepass Road, Kodumudi (TP) Erode District. Appellant(s) in all cases Vs 1. S. Thilagavathi W/o. T.Subramanian, No.63/45, West Agraharam, Kodumudi, Erode District. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 2.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP-2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 3.The District Collector Erode District, Erode. 4.The Assistant Director of Panchayat Collectorate, Erode, Erode District. 5.The Executive Officer Kodumudi Town Panchayat Kodumudi, Erode District. Respondent(s) in all cases PRAYER in W.A.No.3504 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27153 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025. PRAYER in W.A.No.3403 of 2025: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.M.P.No.31464 of 2025 in W.P.No.27153 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025. PRAYER in Rev.Appl.No.1 of 2026: Review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC seeking to review the common order dated 25.11.2025 passed in W.A.No.3403 of 2025. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 PRAYER in Rev.Appl.No.2 of 2026: Review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC seeking to review the common order dated 25.11.2025 passed in W.A.No.3504 of 2025. For Appellant(s)/ Review Applicant(s) : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan For Respondent(s) in all cases : Mr.B.Vikram for R1 Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader for RR2 to 4 Mr.S.Rajesh for R5 COMMOM JUDGMENT (Delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) W.A.No.3504 of 2025 arises out of the order dated 30.10.2025 in W.P.No.27153 of 2025, whereby the notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.109, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP-2) Department, dated 23.06.2025 (in short “G.O.109”) removing the first respondent from the post of Chairman and the consequential notice dated 15.07.2025 issued by the Executive Officer of Kodumudi Town Panchayat for conducting fresh election came to be quashed and directions were issued for convening a fresh meeting to consider the resolution of no-confidence. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 2. W.A.No.3403 of 2025 arises out of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in W.M.P.No.31464 of 2025 in W.P.No.27153 of 2025, whereby the writ Court, while passing final orders in the writ petition dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by the appellants seeking to implead themselves as party respondents. 3. Review Applications No.1 of 2026 and 2 of 2026 arise out of the common order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court in W.A.Nos.3504 of 2025 and 3403 of 2025, whereby this Court had directed the convening of a fresh meeting to conduct no-confidence proceedings. 4. Both the writ appeals and the review applications are preferred by the intervenors in the writ petition, assailing the final orders passed by the writ Court quashing the notification that removed the first respondent from the post of Chairman. Since the issues involved in all these cases are common, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks in W.A.No.3504 of 2025. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 6. The brief facts of the case are that elections to the 15 wards of the Kodumudi Town Panchayat were conducted on 19.02.2022, wherein the appellants, first respondent and other ward members were successfully elected. Pursuant to the elections conducted among the ward members on 14.03.2022, the first respondent was elected as the Chairman of Kodumudi Town Panchayat. 6.1. There had been some dispute and allegations were made against the first respondent in respect of conducting the affairs of the town panchayat. Complaint from 12 ward members came to be submitted before the authorities requesting for a no-confidence motion to remove the first respondent from the post of Chairman. The first respondent, in turn, had also submitted a representation on 02.09.2024 complaining about the activities of the 12 ward members. 6.2. Initially, no-confidence motion was scheduled on 01.11.2024, which did not proceed as it coincided with a festival and was a holiday. The first respondent had filed W.P.No.31128 of 2024, seeking a direction to the District Collector to consider her ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 representation. By order dated 19.10.2024, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the fifth respondent/Executive Officer, to issue notice to all ward members and proceed further with the initiated no-confidence motion. 6.3. A separate writ petition was also filed by the 12 ward members in W.P. No.39485 of 2024 seeking for a direction to fix a date for conduct of the no-confidence motion. By order dated 21.12.2024, the writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the fifth respondent/Executive Officer, to determine a date at the earliest, preferably, within three weeks from the date of the order. In compliance to the directions issued, the fifth respondent issued notice dated 17.02.2025 fixing the meeting for no-confidence motion on 24.02.2025 at 03.00 P.M. 6.4. Complaining statutory violations in the notice issued, particularly, Section 51(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) that there was no clear seven days time for holding the no-confidence motion, the first respondent filed W.P.No.6060 of 2025. This Court, by an order dated ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 17.02.2025, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice, however, directed the fifth respondent/Executive Officer to issue a fresh notice fixing the date of no-confidence motion within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 6.5. Consequently, a fresh notice was issued by the fifth respondent/ Executive Officer on 03.03.2025, convening a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion on 21.03.2025. The no-confidence motion was subsequently conducted, and the minutes were drawn up and forwarded to the Government in compliance with Section 51(11) of the Act. The first respondent had sent a representation to the second respondent/Government, alleging flaws and unfairness in the manner of conducting the meeting. However, the Government issued a gazette notification on 26.03.2025 removing the first respondent from the post of Chairman. The said notification was assailed by the first respondent in the writ petition, wherein the notification removing the first respondent was stayed by an order dated 22.07.2025. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 6.6. The appellants preferred W.M.P.No.31464 of 2025 in W.P.No.27153 of 2025 seeking to implead themselves as party respondents in the writ petition. After completion of the pleadings by keeping the impleading petition pending, the writ Court heard the appellants who were represented through a Senior Counsel in the final hearing of the writ petition. By an order dated 30.10.2025, the writ Court finding that the meeting was not conducted in a fair manner and it was also not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act, quashed the notification and consequently, on consent, issued directions for convening a meeting for a fresh no-confidence motion. 6.7. By recording that the appellants had been heard as intervenors, the writ Court dismissed the petition for impleading. Assailing both the final orders passed and the dismissal of the impleading petition, the appellants have preferred the appeals as narrated above. 7. Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the first respondent had indulged in various activities prejudicial to the interests of the Town Panchayat, due to ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 which, 12 out of the 15 ward members have submitted a written representation complaining about these activities and sought a no- confidence motion to remove the first respondent from the post of Chairman. The first respondent filed several writ petitions at every stage to protract the proceedings, ultimately, only to seek time to prevail upon the members from voting against her. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, a fresh meeting was convened and conducted, wherein 12 ward members have voted in favor of the resolution of no-confidence to remove the first respondent from the post of Chairman. The meeting was conducted in a smooth and fair manner and was completely videographed. Based on the minutes drawn during the meeting, the same was communicated to the government, resulting in the issuance of the gazette notification. 8. He further submitted that once the proceedings were properly conducted and the first respondent was removed from office by issuance of the gazette notification, the writ court ought not to have interfered and set aside the notification merely on the averments made in the affidavit and allegations regarding the conduct of the meeting. He contended that repeated no-confidence meetings cannot ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 be conducted and the directions issued by the writ Court for the conduct of a fresh meeting, as well as the interim order passed by this Court directing a fresh vote of confidence without deciding the appeal on its merits, is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Such orders unlawfully allow a removed official to continue in the post, which is completely detrimental to the interests of the Town Panchayat. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the interim order passed is almost nullifying the appeal, which could not have been done without deciding the appeal on merits and, therefore, the appellants have sought to review the order. When the appellants are the elected ward members who submitted the complaint seeking no-confidence motion, they are aggrieved persons and necessary parties to the writ petition who ought to have been impleaded as party respondents. However, the writ Court erroneously dismissed the petition, which resulted in filing of the other appeal. As such, he seeks interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that a no-confidence motion can only be ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 proceeded in consonance with the provisions of the Act and that there had been statutory violations. The writ Court had rightly interfered with the notification issued, which is perfectly justified. He further submitted that when the appellants were fully heard in the writ petition, wherein they consented for conduct of a fresh meeting, the appeal filed itself is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the appeals. 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, a fresh meeting was convened by the authorities and the entire proceedings from the issuance of notice to the minutes drawn were photographed/videographed and the entire details, including the minutes drawn are all filed in the sealed covers before this Court. 12. We gave our anxious consideration to the submissions made and considered the materials available on record. 13. Admittedly, 15 members, including the appellants, the first respondent and others were elected as ward members to the ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 Kodumudi Town Panchayat on 19.02.2022. In the subsequent election held among the elected members, the first respondent was elected as the Chairman of the Town Panchayat on 04.03.2022. Later, owing to certain disputes and allegations in the manner of conduct of affairs of the first respondent as Chairman, a complaint was submitted by 12 ward members, seeking a no-confidence motion to remove her from the post of chairman. 14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 51 of the Act, which deals with motion of no-confidence of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson. For better understanding, the provision is extracted hereunder: “51. Motion of no-confidence in Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down herein. (2) Written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be specified by the Government, signed by such number of Councillors as shall constitute not less than three-fifth of the sanctioned strength of the Council together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be made, shall be delivered in person to the Commissioner by any two of the Councillors signing the notice. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 (3) The Commissioner shall than convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the Municipal Office, at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) is delivered to him. He shall give to the Councillors, notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor. (4) The Commissioner shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the Commissioner is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the councillors by the Commissioner under subsection (5). (5) If the commissioner is unable to preside at the meeting, he may after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall not be later than thirty days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3) Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the Councillors of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting. (6) Save as provided in sub-sections (4) and (5), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not for any reason be adjourned. (7) As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced, the Commissioner shall read to the council, the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened and declare it to be open for debate. (8) No debate on any motion under this section shall be adjourned. (9) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiry of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 Upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of two hours, as the case may be, the motion shall to put to vote of the council. (10) The Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion, nor shall be entitled to vote thereon. (11) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon shall forthwith on the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Commissioner to the Government. (12) If the motion is carried out with the support of not less than four-fifths of the sanctioned strength of the council, the government shall, by notification, remove the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson, as the case may be. (13) If the motion is not carried out by such a majority as aforesaid, or if the meeting cannot be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson shall be received until after the expiry of one year from the date of the meeting. (14) No notice of a motion under this section shall be received.- (i) within one year of the assumption of office by the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson; or (ii) during the last year of the term of office of the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson;” 15. The motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson can be made as per Section 51(1) of the Act through a written notice of intention to make the motion signed by at least three-fifth of the sanctioned strength as contemplated under Section 51(2) of the Act. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 On receipt of such notice, the Commissioner shall convene a meeting for the no-confidence motion within a period of 30 days from the date on which notice is delivered. Further, the notice is to be given with 15 clear days before the date of such meeting. 16. Sub-sections (4) to (10) of Section 51 of the Act deal with the manner of conducting the meeting. The Commissioner shall preside over the meeting, and if within half an hour from the appointed time, the Commissioner is not present to preside, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a further date as notified by him which shall not be later than 30 days by giving 7 clear days for the meeting. Except for the above, the meeting shall not be adjourned for any other reason. The no-confidence motion shall be led by the Commissioner, who shall declare it open for debate. While the debate on this motion cannot be adjourned, Sub-section (9) prescribes a strict time limit. The debate shall automatically terminate upon the expiry of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting. Either upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the period of two hours, the motion shall be put to vote before the council. The Commissioner is barred from either speaking on the ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 merits of the motion or participating in the voting. 17. Immediately, upon termination of the meeting, copy of the minutes along with a copy of the motion and the voting results shall be forwarded to the Government under Sub-section (11) and if the motion is carried out with the support of not less than four-fifth of the sanctioned strength, as per Sub-section (12), the Government shall, by notification, remove the Chairperson. Sub-section (13) mandates that if the motion is not carried out by such a majority, no fresh notice for any subsequent motion shall be received till a period of one year. 18. In the instant case, out of 15 elected ward members to the Kodumudi Town Panchayat, 12 members submitted a written notice for the motion expressing want of confidence in compliance with Section 51(1) and (2) of the Act. Earlier, the fifth respondent had issued notice dated 17.02.2025 convening the meeting of no-confidence motion on 24.02.2025 at 03.00 P.M. When the notice was put to challenge by the first respondent, the same was quashed in view of the procedural defect under Section 51(3) of the Act, as it did not provide the sufficient time as mandated. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 19. This Court, while quashing the notice, directed the fifth respondent to issue fresh notice for the no-confidence motion within 30 days in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a fresh notice was issued on 03.03.2025, scheduling the no-confidence meeting on 21.03.2025 at 11.00 A.M. The meeting was duly held on 21.03.2025. It commenced at 11.30 A.M. and the debate went on till about 08.00 P.M. Ultimately, after the motion of no-confidence was put to vote, the minutes were drawn up and communicated to the Government, which resulted in the issuance of a notification dated 23.06.2025 removing the first respondent from the post of Chairman. 20. The first respondent submitted a representation complaining that the meeting was not conducted in a fair manner; that an unruly mob of over 200 persons did not allow her and her supporting councillors into the meeting hall; and that the meeting went on till 08.00 P.M. and the ward members were pressurized to vote in favor of the motion. She also contended that the entire meeting which resulted in her removal was under coercion and undue pressure. The writ Court observed that even though the first respondent raised these issues ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 regarding non-conduct of the meeting in a fair manner due to coercion and pressure exerted by the unruly mob in the affidavit, the official respondents have not controverted the same in the counter, which was taken to be deemed admission. 21. Further, the writ Court found that the minutes drawn up were flawed as the fifth respondent, had no power under Section 51 of the Act to continue the meeting beyond the permitted time and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. Section 51(9) of the Act specifically mandates that the debate on a motion shall automatically terminate upon the expiry of two hours from the time appointed for its commencement, if it is not concluded earlier and upon conclusion of the debate or the expiry of the said two hours, as the case may be, the motion shall be put to vote of the council. Any meeting for the no- confidence motion could be carried out only in compliance with the provisions of the Act. 22. The no-confidence meeting was convened on 21.03.2025 at 11.00 A.M. and it commenced at 11.30 A.M. and as per Section 51(9) of the Act, the meeting would automatically terminate at 01.30 P.M. at ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 which point, the fifth respondent ought to have put the motion to the vote of the council. However, in complete violation to Section 51(9) of the Act, the fifth respondent had allowed the debate to go on till 08.00 P.M. and thereafter, put the no-confidence motion to the vote of the council. It is a settled principle of law that when a statute prescribes that a particular thing must be done in a particular manner, either it must be done in that manner or not at all, and cannot be performed in any other way. 23. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahsildar, Thanjore v. G. Thambidurai and Another, reported in [(2017) 12 SCC 642] and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “26. It is the foundational principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all and all other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This pristine legal postulation is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) LR 1 Ch D 46, which was followed in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41, and in a plethora of pronouncements thereafter. Tested on this anvil as well, the preference in the matter of reassignment of the suit ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 land in favour of Respondent 1 sans the adherence to the mandatory prerequisites engrafted in RSO 45(4) could not have been extended to him.” 24. Possibly, as stated by the first respondent, due to the presence of a mob of nearly 200 persons, the meeting of no-confidence was proceeded under undue pressure and coercion which prolonged till 8 p.m., which fact was not denied by the official respondents, as observed by the writ Court. 25. Be that as it may, when Section 51 of the Act sets out the procedure and manner for executing a no-confidence motion to remove a person from the post of Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the entire procedure is to be carried out in compliance to the mandatory provisions of the Act, and procedural breach, if any, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the learned Judge on finding that the fifth respondent was not vested with the power to extend the meeting beyond the two hour limit, but allowed the council to vote at 08.00 P.M., held that the voting and the minutes drawn were flawed and had rightly quashed the impugned notification, removing the first respondent from the post of Chairman. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 26. As regards the contention that the appellants ought to have been impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition by allowing the impleading petition, which resulted in filing of the other appeal, a bare perusal of the order reveals that the appellants counsel, along with their Senior Counsel, were heard by the writ Court as proposed respondents/intervenors. In the opening part of the order itself, the learned Judge has recorded that the Senior Counsel for the first respondent, Government Pleader, along with the Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the proposed parties, who are appellants herein, were heard. 27. Ultimately, while passing final orders in the writ petition, the learned Judge dismissed the impleading petition, holding that although the appellants/petitioners therein are interested in the litigation, they are neither proper nor necessary parties. However, the Court fully considered the submissions made through their counsel as intervenors. When the fact remains that the appellants were represented by a Senior Counsel and they were heard as intervenors in the writ petition, based on which a final decision was taken, we find no merits in ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 W.A.No.3403 of 2025 filed against the dismissal of the impleading petition. 28. While allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned notification, the writ Court issued certain directions for convening and conducting a fresh no-confidence motion. Though the appellants could have assailed the decision of the writ Court quashing the notification, it is pertinent to note that the learned Senior Counsel along with the learned counsel on record appearing for the appellants, consented to the issuance of directions regarding the convening and conduct of the fresh meeting for the no-confidence motion. The relevant portion of the writ Court’s order reads as under: “17. This order will not put an end to the litigation, as the parties have been troubling this Court on more than three occasions. Hence, with the consent of all the Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, the following orders are passed: (a) The fourth respondent will issue a notice convening the meeting to consider the resolution of no-confidence of the writ petitioner, on or before 03.11.2025; (b) The notice shall state that the meeting will be held on 11.11.2025 at 11.00 a.m; ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 (c) The fourth respondent shall ensure that no third party or outsiders are permitted in the meeting hall or in the premises of Kodumudi Town Panchayat; (d) The Councillors will be free from any pressure during the course of debate or while voting. The fourth respondent shall ensure that mobile phones or other recording devices will not be carried either by the petitioner, or by other 14 Councillors; (e) The District Collector will nominate the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode to be present during the debate, as well as, during the voting as an observer; (f) The District Collector shall ensure that sufficient police protection is offered to the fourth respondent, as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode while discharging their duties; (g) The Executive officer shall ensure strict compliance with Section 51(9). If the debate is concluded within a period of two hours, he shall put the resolution to vote immediately. If for some reason the debate continues till 01.00 p.m., at the stroke of 01.00 p.m., the Executive Officer shall stop the debate and put the resolution to vote. The voting shall take place as required by law through a secret ballot; (h) The entire proceedings, right from 11.00 a.m., till the counting of votes should be videographed. The cost of such videography shall be borne by the writ petitioner; (i) The respondents 2 and 4 shall act on a web copy of this order and shall not wait for the certified copy.” ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 29. The appellants, having consented to the issuance of directions for conducting a fresh no-confidence meeting to resolve the dispute and end the litigation, cannot subsequently file the present appeal challenging the consent order passed by the writ Court. It is a settled principle of law that after giving explicit consent, a party cannot be allowed to resile from that position and challenge the resulting order in an appeal. 30. An appeal challenging a consent order is not maintainable, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Thilagavathy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2011) 6 SCC 365], wherein it was held as follows: “11.However, on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench, it is quite apparent that the learned Judges of the Division Bench although were pleased to dismiss the writ appeal by its common order dated 14.3.2007, it dealt only with the facts of the case arising out of Writ Petition No. 9110 of 1997 which had been filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge challenging the order of her transfer and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed since the appellant had failed to ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 establish before the learned Single Judge that the order of transfer required interference. The Division Bench was pleased to observe that when the appellant had agreed to join at the transferred place and given an assurance to that effect to the learned Single Judge, the appeal against the consent order cannot be held maintainable and hence the appeal against the same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order under challenge in this appeal. 12.But having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere with the aforesaid reason assigned by the learned Single Judge as the appellant had already given up her contest before the learned Single Judge against the order of her transfer and hence it had rightly not been allowed to be challenged by the Division Bench. As we agree with the view of the Division Bench that the appellant could not have been allowed to prefer a writ appeal against the order which was passed with her consent as she had given up her challenge before the Single Judge against the order of her transfer, we see no reason to interfere with this part of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the appeal arising out of Writ Petition No. 9110 of 1997.” 31. Even though the appellants were represented by a different counsel on record and Senior Counsel in the writ petition, where consent was given for conducting a fresh no-confidence meeting, it is ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 interesting to note that no grounds challenging or disputing the consent have been raised in the present writ appeal. Neither in the grounds of appeal nor in the averments in the affidavit filed, it has been stated that when they were heard as intervenors while deciding the writ petition, the learned senior counsel had not given any such consent. In the absence of any such averment/ground and considering the fact that the impugned directions for a fresh no-confidence meeting were passed based on the explicit consent of the learned Senior Counsel for both the appellants and the first respondent, the present writ appeal, viz., W.A.No. 3504 of 2025, is not maintainable. 32. In view of the foregoing deliberations, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the writ Court warranting interference, both on merits and on the ground of maintainability. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed. 33. The review applications have been filed seeking review of the common order passed by this Court, which directed the conduct of a fresh meeting for the no-confidence motion. A bare perusal of the order reveals that the appellants/review applicants, who are ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 councillors of the Town Panchayat and the first respondent/writ petitioner, who is the elected Chairman, against whom the no-confidence motion was passed earlier, have conceded that, in order to give a quietus to the issue which is lingering at least for more than six months, a fresh date be notified by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat to conduct the proceedings for a fresh no-confidence motion. The relevant portion is extracted below: “2. After some arguments, the main contesting respondents i.e., the present appellants, who are the Councillors of the Town Panchayat concerned and the first respondent/writ petitioner, who is the elected Chairman of the Town Panchayat against whom the alleged No-confidence Motion was passed earlier, which was the subject matter in the writ petition, have conceded that, in order to give a quietus to the issue, which is lingering at least for the past more than six months, a fresh date be notified by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat to conduct the proceedings for a fresh No- confidence Motion as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, however dispensing with the period of notice. 3. If such a proceedings is completed in a peaceful manner and if it is ensured that the No-confidence Motion proceedings is taken up in a conducive and congenial atmosphere without any external influence and if the result is ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 ultimately recorded and a report to that effect is filed along with the photographs, that will be giving a quietus to the whole issue.” 34. The appellants had, in fact, assailed the interim orders passed in these appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.35256 - 35257 of 2025. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 08.12.2025, dismissed the SLPs, granting liberty to the appellants/review applicants to file a review petition on the ground that no instructions had been given to their advocate to consent to the conduct of the fresh no-confidence meeting. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed this Court that, if any petition is moved by the review applicants at the earliest, in view of the urgency, the matter may be taken up and disposed of expeditiously. 35. However, we do not find that any such petition was moved before this Court seeking an early hearing. Instead, the appeals were listed for hearing on 28.04.2026 and the same were directed to be listed along with the review applications immediately after the summer vacation, on 09.06.2026. When the matters were called on that date, the learned counsel for the appellants, citing a bereavement in his ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 family, sought an adjournment and the appeals along with review applications have been listed today, heard and are now being disposed of. 36. These review applications arise out of the common interim order passed by this Court. The review is filed on two grounds. One disputing the consent given by the counsel and the other on merits. The scope of review is limited and are to be confined within the parameters laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. When the merits of the issue cannot be re-agitated in review, it is only disputed that the consent was not given by the counsel which is recorded in the order. 37. In fact, as referred above, the direction for conduct of a fresh meeting after quashing the notification was allowed by the writ Court based on the consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/review petitioners. When the consent given in the writ petition is not disputed either through the grounds of appeal or in the affidavits filed in the writ appeals, the dispute raised regarding the consent given by the learned counsel in the interim order passed by this Court in the writ appeal becomes academic. Now that the writ ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 appeals have been finally decided upholding the order passed by the writ Court both on merits and also concluding that the appeals were not maintainable in view of the consent order passed by the writ Court, we see no merit in these review applications. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. 38. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, a fresh no-confidence meeting was convened on 11.11.2025 by issuing a notice dated 01.11.2025. The records containing the entire proceedings of the meeting were produced in sealed covers before this Court. Perusal of the record, reveals that the meeting of no- confidence motion was conducted on 11.11.2025, in which none of the members participated, which has all been photographed and videographed. Ultimately, the minutes were drawn by the fifth respondent, recording the failure of no-confidence motion under Section 51(12) of the Act and communicated to the Government vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.533-2024-A1 dated 10.12.2025. The record thus clearly establishes that the fresh no-confidence motion ended in failure. ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 39. Resultantly, the writ appeals and the review applications stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 24.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 & Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J. gya To 1.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP-2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 2.The District Collector Erode District, Erode. 3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat Collectorate, Erode, Erode District. 4.The Executive Officer Kodumudi Town Panchayat Kodumudi, Erode District. W.A.Nos.3504 and 3403 of 2025 AND Rev.Appl.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 24.06.2026 ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis