M I ROYAPPAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the Vice Chairman of the Kaniambadi Panchayat Union Council and the President of Adukkambarai village panchayat. A special meeting of the union Council was convened by the Chairman on 2-9-1970 for three specific purposes, namely, election of chairman, co-option of member and election of a member to the Appointment Committee. It so happened that, after election of the vice-Chairman was over, the other subjects were not taken up for consideration and the meeting, for reasons not known, was adjourned, but with the consent of the members present. The adjourned meeting for consideration of two other outstanding subjects as above was convened once again on 11-9-1970 at 2-30 p. m. Members of the Council were present. But it is common ground that the chairman as well as the petitioner left the meeting abruptly thereby once again not considering the subjects in the agenda set for the meeting properly called. The petitioner's explanation is that, after adjourning the first meeting called on 2-91970, the petitioner felt a doubt whether the said adjournment was proper in the eye of law and wanted a clarification from the Director of Rural Welfare who is the inspector under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. As no reply was received on the representations said to have been made by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that he along with the Chairman once again adjourned the meeting on 11-9-1970 but this time without the concurrence of the members present and without even noting in the minutes book as to the reasons why the meeting was adjourned. In fact, it is found that the petitioner and the Chairman of the council have taken away the minutes book also and to this date it is not known what happened to the same. As the Chairman and the petitioner as Vice Chairman left the council hall and therefore abandoned the meeting properly held and called, the members present continued the same, carried on with subjects in the agenda, coopted members and elected a member to the Appointment Committee. In fact, they had to write the minutes of such a meeting held by them in independent sheets of paper and they prefaced such minutes with the statement that, as the chairman of the Union Council and the Petitioner as the Vice-Chairman left the council hall without justifiable reasons they were continuing the meeting and dealing with the subjects in the agenda. Coming to know of this, the petitioner complained about the validity of such a meeting. The Collector of the District as the immediate supervisory authority of the Panchayats and Union Council referred the matter to the Government and the Government and the Government passed the impugned order holding that the meeting held by the members who remained in the council hall after the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman left was perfectly regular and valid and the resolutions passed therein are unimpeachable. It is as against this the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IT is unfortunate that respondents 3 to 9 who are really contesting respondents are not represented before me.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second meeting was adjourned since the clarification sought for by the petitioner regarding the propriety of the first adjourned meeting by the Union Council was still awaited and therefore he and the Chairman has to leave the council hall without proceeding with the meeting any further. In these circumstances, it is stated that the continuance of such a meeting by some of the members of the Council after the chairman and the Vice-Chairman left the same is irregular and any resolution passed by them should be deemed to the be illegal.