AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Srinivasan, J.—The petitioner is the President of the Koothanur Panchayat. u/s 150(1) of Madras Act (XXXV of 1958), the Inspector
issued a notice to the President calling upon him to offer his explanation in respect of certain acts of omission and commission mentioned in the
notice. An explanation was duly submitted. Thereafter, proceedings were started under the succeeding Sub-section of Section 150. A meeting was
convened by the Tahsildar, and the proposal for the removal of the President was brought up for the consideration of the Panchayat. Out of the
total strength of 15 members of the Panchayat, seven attended the meeting. The petitioner did not attend. These seven members passed a
resolution accepting the proposal of the Inspector to remove the President. That was followed by a notification issued by the Inspector removing
the President from office. According to the petitioner, he too issued a notice on 31st August, 1961, convening a meeting of the Panchayat on 11th
September, 1961. That meeting was held on the scheduled date. This meeting was attended by eight members of the Panchayat. According to the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, these eight were the members who did not attend the earlier meeting. At this meeting, it is stated, there was a
valid resolution that was passed rescinding the earlier resolution whereby the Panchayat approved the proposal of the Inspector to remove the
President. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with a petition under Article 226 praying for the issue of
certiorari to quash the notification issued by the Inspector, on the ground that the decision of the Panchayat which authorised the issue of that
notification had been validly rescinded by the subsequent resolution of the Panchayat.
On behalf of the Inspector and the Tahsildar, the respondents to the petition, it is stated that there had been a valid resolution passed by the
Panchayat at the meeting convened in accordance with the provisions of Section 150, and that the decision of the Panchayat reached on that
occasion has to be given effect to by the Inspector by the issue of a notification under Sub-section (12) of that section. It is claimed that the validity
and the legality of the proceedings cannot be questioned by the petitioner. With regard to the meeting held on nth September, 1961, it is stated that
the petitioner had no authority to convene that meeting for the purpose of cancelling the earlier resolution.
It seems to me that the contention of the respondents have to prevail. Mr. Sankaran for the petitioner relies upon the rules relating to the
proceedings of the Panchayat. According to him under Rule 4 the President shall, on requisition, convene a meeting of the Panchayat and at such a
meeting, it is open to the Panchayat to pass a resolution rescinding an earlier resolution. Rule 9 reads:
No resolution of a panchayat shall be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof except at a meeting specially convened in
that behalf and by a resolution of a panchayat supported by not less than one-half of the sanctioned number of members
It is contended that this rule enables the panchayat to cancel its own earlier resolution.
It seems to me that the proceedings u/s 150 of the Act are totally different from a normal resolution passed by a panchayat as part of its
ordinary business. The meeting of a Panchayat for carrying out of the business of the Panchayat is presided over by the President or in his absence
the Vice-President or by someone else of the members who are present at the meeting convened. In the present case, it was a resolution that was
passed on a proposal put forward by the Inspector, the meeting itself having been convened by that authority through the Tahsildar. Under the
Statute, it is necessary that the Tahsildar should preside at the meeting so convened. The section is specific that no other person shall preside
thereat. Section 150 is self-contained in this regard, and the entirety of the procedure relating to such a meeting is covered by the various Sub-
sections of the section. It is clear, therefore, that it was not a normal business meeting of the Panchayat, that is contemplated by Section 150, and
the decision of the Panchayat u/s 150(11) is not a resolution of the Panchayat which is liable to be modified at a subsequent meeting. That
particular proposal which led to the decision of the Panchayat cannot form part of the business of the Panchayat, which the President can, by
convening a special meeting, cancel or modify. On the terms of the section, I am of the opinion that these rules that are relied upon by Mr.
Sankaran cannot apply, and that the Panchayat has no jurisdiction to cancel the decision reached u/s 150(11)of the Act.
The petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.