The Revenue Divisional Officer and Another vs V.K. Ramanathan <BR>P. Duraisamy Naicker Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors

K. Veeraswami, C.J.—Erumaipatti Panchayat Union Council consists of 29 members, of whom 25 are members by reason of their being

Presidents of Panchayats and the remaining four have been co-opted. This is in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of

the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. On 5th May, 1966, the State Government by G.O. No. 1154, Rural Development and Local

Administration, in purported exercise of their power u/s 155(1)(a), dissolved the Panchayat Union Council with effect from that date and directed

that it would be re-constituted in terms of Sub-section (3) of that section with effect from 5th May, 1967. On 13th May, 1967, the Revenue

Divisional Officer, who had acted as Special Officer in the interregnum, issued notices for the purpose of electing a Chairman. One of the co-opted

members of the erstwhile Panchayat Union Council filed petitions on 25th May, 1967, under Article 226 of the Constitution for prohibition

preventing the Revenue Divisional Officer from holding a meeting for the purpose of electing a Chairman and for a direction to the Revenue

Divisional Officer that he should permit the erstwhile co-opted members to participate in any meeting for electing a Chairman. The petitions were

allowed by Kailasam, J., and W.A. No. 463 of 1969 arises therefrom. In the other appeal W.A. No. 76 of 1972 too, a similar question arises.

The question we are called upon to decide is whether the co-opted members survive the dissolution of the Panchayat Union Council so that,

when it is reconstituted, they continue to be co-opted members. In our opinion, the question does not admit of any answer, but no member of the

Panchayat Union Council will survive the dissolution. As a matter of fact, Sub-section (3) of Section 155 itself is clear on the point. It says that, on

the date fixed for dissolution of a Panchayat under Sub-section (1), all its members as well as its President and Vice-President shall forthwith be

deemed to have vacated their offices as such. The sub-section does not say that, when the members vacate their offices on dissolution, they

continue to be members of the Panchayat Union Council. It is true that the 25 Presidents become members of the re-constituted Panchayat Union

Council. That is not because they have not vacated their offices under Sub-section (3) of Section 155 following dissolution of the Panchayats, but

because the Act provides that the Panchayat Union Council shall consist of Presidents of Panchayats. It follows therefrom, that, so long as the 25

members continue to be Presidents of Panchayats by virtue of their offices, they are entitled automatically to be members of the reconstituted

Panchayat Union Council. In other words, they are ex-officio members. This is to say by virtue of their offices as Presidents of Panchayats, they

become members of the Panchayat Union Council. It cannot be said that they continue to be members of the Panchayat Union Council,

notwithstanding the dissolution. Ramaprasada Rao, J., has taken the view that, because the definition of the term ""member"" also includes a co-

opted member, it follows therefrom that when the Panchayat Union Council was reconstituted the co-opted members should be regarded as

members of the Panchayat Union Council. We are unable to accept this view. Only, if and to the extent the co-opted members are entitled to have

their status, they will be included in the expression ""members"". Once there is a dissolution, they shall be deemed to have vacated their offices. It

means that they are no longer co-opted members, unless they are again co-opted as members of the reconstituted Panchayat Union Council by

virtue of their being ex officio members. On that view, the appeals are allowed. No costs.