P.K. Arjunan vs N. Lakshmi

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—The concurrent judgments of both the Courts below giving a declaration to the plaintiff as a Ward Member and

that the order passed by the defendant, declaring that the plaintiff was disqualified to the post of Ward Member, was null and void and

consequently granting mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to allow the plaintiff to participate in the Panchayat Meetings and conduct the

proceedings, is the subject matter of this Second Appeal, filed by the defendant.

According to the plaintiff/respondent, she was elected as a Ward Member of Vanamadevi Panchayat unopposed and there was a declaration to

that effect by the Returning Officer, Cuddalore Panchayat, on 21.10.2001; originally, the defendant was elected as President of the said Panchayat

and since she supported a man in the opposite camp of the defendant for the election of Vice-President, the defendant became inimical towards

her and fabricated the records as if she, despite receipt of notice issued by the defendant, had not attended three consecutive meetings and, on the

basis of it, the defendant passed an order, disqualifying the petitioner from the Ward Member post.

The suit was contested by the defendant, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable, as the suit was an essence of an election petition and,

as such, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. It was further contested that notices were issued, the same were received by the

plaintiff and, despite the same, she was not bothered to attend any of the three consecutive meetings and when she did not attend consecutively for

three meetings, she became automatically disqualified by her absence and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court.

During the course of trial, plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked and, on the other hand, on the side of

defendant, defendant himself was examined as D.W.1, besides one Damodaran as D.W.2, and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked.

The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate Court as well, in the appeal filed by the defendant, confirmed the decree

and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal, at the instance of the defendant.

It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below failed to see that the defendant had not passed

any order disqualifying the plaintiff, but only disqualification was recorded; hence, the same was to be corrected and, in any event, the suit was not

maintainable, as the issue was to be decided only by the Election Commission.

I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the judgments impugned herein,

as well as the other records.

On appreciation of the materials available on record, both the Courts below would hold that u/s 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the

question of disqualification could be considered only by the executive authority or the Commissioner or the Chief Executive Officer, and not by the

Panchayat President.

In this case, notices were issued by the Panchayat President and an order was passed, disqualifying the plaintiff to hold the post of Ward

Member. Further, the issue raised in the suit cannot be considered by the Election Commission, as the same is not relatable to the election or the

procedure to be followed in the process of election. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention, with regard to the maintainability of the suit.

On the other hand, the exercise of power of disqualification by the Panchayat President can be gone into only during the course of trial in a

Civil Court.

According to the plaintiff, signature was obtained from her by some officials in the Panchayat, on the basis of a request that her signature was

necessary, with regard to her swearing-in as a Ward Member in the Panchayat.

Both the Courts below accepted the explanation of the plaintiff and rightly held that the order passed by the defendant, disqualifying the plaintiff

to hold the post of Ward Member, was null and void and, as such, the consequent mandatory injunction granted by both the Courts below was

perfectly justified.

Second Appeal is devoid of merit and it is dismissed at the threshold. Also, C.M.P. No. 19125 of 2004 is dismissed.