U.K.N. RAJU Vs. NACHARAMMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election of members of the Sulur Panchayat took place in 1958 under Madras Act XXXV of 1958. This Act contains a provision for the reservation of seats for members of the Schedule castes and co -option of a woman. By S. 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 the 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 under 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 an ordinary business meeting of the Panchayat is opposed to law, and this proceeding has therefore to be quashed.

(2.) 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 Sec. 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 S. 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 be 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 S. 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 costs.