K.T.A. Jayarama Chetty vs Raju Goundar and Others

Veeraswami, J.—The Petitioner is stated to be the President of a Panchayat and he sent notices to the first four Respondents that they had

sustained disqualifications and wanted them to have the points settled u/s 28(1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. They filed a petition before

the District Munsif, Vellore, who is constituted as the judicial authority to decide such matters. But eventually, that authority found that the

disqualification was not sustained by any of the Respondents 1 to 4. So far as the third Respondent is concerned, the ground of disqualification

was that he had been convicted of a criminal offence u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The authority took the view that since he had not been

sentenced to any term of imprisonment, the disqualification could not be sustained. The decision of the authority is clearly right. The other three

Respondents were alleged to have been disqualified on the ground that they failed to attend three consecutive meetings. The District Munsif

records that though one of the meetings was convened to take place at 2 p.m. and the members waited at the place notified for the meeting till 3

p.m., no meeting took place and actually it took place at 4 p.m. In the circumstances, the authority took the view that the alleged disqualification

could not be sustained. I think it is a possible view to take. Supposing, the meeting was notified to take place at a particular time and at a particular

place but actually the meeting did not take place as per the notice and it took place at some other time and at some other place, can it be said that

failure, in such circumstances, on the part of a member to attend such a meeting is a failure as contemplated by the Act, for the purposes of

sustaining the disqualification? I think not. The Munsif found that actually the meeting did not take place at 2 p.m., which was the time fixed in the

notice. If the meeting took place at 4 p.m., the Munsif cannot be said to be wrong in holding that failure to attend such a meeting would not attract

the disqualification. In any case, I am not, under Article 226 of the Constitution inclined to intervene at the instance of the Petitioner, because I find,

from a reading of the order, that all is not well between the President on the one hand and some of the members on the other. There is also another

aspect, namely, that in the particular circumstances the Petitioner cannot be permitted to spend the Panchayat funds freely in this manner. It is true

he is entitled to have an adjudication on the dispute as to the alleged disqualification. The adjudication was given by the Munsif. I decline to

interfere. The petition is dismissed.