S.V. NARAYANASWAMI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF LOCAL BOARDS AND MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Jagadisan, J., rejecting a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition with a view to restrain the Inspector of Municipal Council and Local Boards from holding a meeting of the Thenkarai' Panchayat Union Council for the election of its Chairman. Thenkarai is a Panchayat' Development Block formed for the purpose of National Extension Services in villages. The Services in villages. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7 of the Madras Act XXXV of 1958 declared the local area covered by the Thenkarai Block to be a Panchayat Union. Under the Act the affairs of a Panchayat Union is to be administered by a Panchayat Union Council. By a notification, G.O. Ms. No. 2548, dated 22nd September, 1961 the Government declared that the Thenkarai Panchayat Union Council will be constituted as and; from 2nd October, 1961. This notification was made under Section 11(1) of the Act. Thenkarai Block consists of 15 revenue villages and one of the villages constituting the Block is Tamaraikulam. We have now to refer to the establishment of primary panchayats for that village. . By a notification, G.O. Ms. No. 1647 (Local Administration), dated 5th October, 1960 the Government issued instructions that for the purpose of local administration, the village of Tamaraikulam should be divided into three panchayat areas, namely, Tamaraikulam, Lakshmipuram and another village whose name was to be designated later. Sometime later, the Government appears to have thought it expedient to bifurcate Lakshmipuram into two panchayat areas, namely, Lakshmipuram and Krishnapuram. Thus the area comprised in the revenue village of Tamarikulam is to consist of four primary panchayats. The result of this and of similar notifications with respect to other villages is that although Tamaraikulam Panchayat Union Block consists of only 15 revenue villages, its primary constituents panchayat number 21. Objection was taken by certain residents as to the legality and propriety of the bifurcation of Lakshmipuram village. That matter has not yet been finally disposed of : no election could therefore take place to the panchayats in that group. Consequently it was not possible for these villages to be represented in the Panchayat Union Council which is to consist of the Presidents of the various Panchayats. The authorities, however, wanted to go ahead with the election of the Chairman of the Thenkarai Panchayat Union Council notwithstanding the fact that Tamaraikulam group of villages could not send their representatives to the Union Council. The Union Council thus does not have the sanctioned strength as the representatives from Tamaraikulam group of panchayats have not yet come in.

(2.) TWO Presidents of Lakshmipuram village thereupon filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition to restrain the State Government from proceeding with the election of the Chairman and Vice -Chairman of Thenkarai Panchayat Union Council, That was fixed to take place on 25th October, 1961. Jagadisan, J., rejected the petition holding that although four out of the 21 constituent panchayats were not in a position to send their representatives to the Panchayat Union Council, it was competent for the latter to meet and transact its business. In so holding, the learned Judge followed the decision in M.K. Ravutha Gounder In re : (1958)2MLJ414 . Feeling aggrieved by the decision, one of the petitioners before the learned Judge has filed the present appeal.

(3.) MR . V. Thyagarajan appearing for the appellant contends that so long as the four panchayats have not sent in their representatives, the Panchayat Union Council cannot be said to have been duly constituted, though it might be, that such a Council can be said to have been established by virtue of the notification issued, by the Government under Section 11(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, learned Counsel refers to the decision of the Court of Appeal in England reported in Mayor and Co. of Merchants of the Staple of England v. Governor and Company of Bank of England (1887) L.R. 21 Q.B. 160, wherein Wills, J.', observed: