U.K.N. Raju vs Nachakammal and Others

Srinivasan, J.—The election of members of the Sulur Panchayat took place to 1958 under Madras Act XXXV of 1958. This Act contains a

provision for the reservation of seats for members of the Scheduled Castes and co-option of a woman. By Section 15(4) of this Act every

panchayat has been empowered to co-opt to itself one woman whose name appears in the electoral roll for the panchayat, if there is no elected

woman member in that panchayat. In June 1960 the President of the Panchayat convened a meeting for the purpose of co-opting a woman

member. The name of the first Respondent was proposed and seconded. The second Respondent was also proposed and seconded. It appears

that as a result of the show of hands each of Respondents 1 and 2 obtained six supporters from among the members of the panchayat. The

President of the Panchayat purported to exercise his power of casting vote and his vote decided the issue in favour of the first Respondent.

The Petitioner who claims to be the Vice-President of the Sulur Panchayat attacks this co-option resulting in the first Respondent becoming a

member of the panchayat. It is contended on his behalf by his learned Counsel that the procedure to co-opt a woman member should have been

on the lines of an election, that the person should have been properly nominated and the election conducted with the provision of ballot boxes and

that, in such a proceeding the President of the Panchayat would not have the right to cast vote. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that u/s

17(5) of the Act the person co-opted holds office only for such period as she would have been entitled to hold office if she had been elected at an

ordinary election or at a casual election, as the case may be, and further that she has all the privileges of an elected member. From this it is argued

that the procedure adopted for the purpose of co-option as if it were on ordinary business meeting of the panchayat is opposed to law, and this

proceeding has therefore to be quashed.

The matter is free of any authority and one can only go by the intention underlying the provision and from any indications flowing from the

language used therein. The Sub-section does not say that where there is no elected woman member of the panchayat the members of the

panchayat are entitled to elect a woman member from among those whose names appear in the electoral roll. The word election has been

studiously avoided in this Sub-section. The section merely states that the panchayat shall be entitled to co-opt to itself a person. It may be that by

virtue of another provision such co-opted member is entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges which an elected member may have under the

Act. But it is impossible to construe the expressions in Section 15(4) as implying that what was contemplated was a process of election by the

members of the panchayat.

If that should be the proper construction of this section, learned Counsel for the Petitioner concedes that the President would have a casting vote

and the proceeding cannot by attacked on any ground. The result is, that, in the view I take, the process of election is not called for in giving effect

to Section 15(4) of the Act. No invalidating circumstance accordingly attaches to the proceeding in question. The petition fails and is dismissed but

there will be no order as to cost.