B GNANARAJ Vs. A M VEDANAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ of prohibition is sought to prevent the first respondent, the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, from proceeding to consider certain subjects in the following circumstances. On 22-5-1965, the first respondent called for two special meetings and one ordinary meeting of the Panchayat Union Council. The two special meetings were for the purpose of electing the Vice Chairman and a member to the appointments committee. The ordinary meeting was to consider 55 subjects detailed in the agenda relating to matter of administration. Items 56 to 58 on the agenda related to the election of members to certain Committees and for the co-option of women members to the council. The first of the special meetings was held at 2 P. M. and the Vice Chairman was elected. The second special meeting was held at 3 P. M. and a member was elected as a member of the appointments Committee. When the ordinary meeting commenced, the very first subject on the agenda led to considerable controversy. Apparently, at the special meetings referred to earlier, persons whose candidature was supported by the Chairman failed to get elected. For that reason, it is alleged, the Chairman thought that he would not have sufficient majority when it came to dealing with the subject set down in the agenda. He abruptly announced, that the meeting was adjourned and walked out of the council hall taking the minutes book with him; his adherents, 13 in number, departed with him. Even the first subject which had been discussed was not decided. The first respondent, it is claimed, had no right to adjourn the meeting in this manner. Thereafter, the remaining 18 members continued the meeting with the Vice Chairman presiding over it. They sent for the minutes book from the Commissioner, but the Commissioner did not produce it. The meeting proceeded to consider the subjects on the agenda, recorded its proceedings and forwarded the record to the Commissioner of the Union Council and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin.

(2.) ON 2-6-1963, the Chairman issued a notice calling for a meeting of the council at 2 P. M. On 9-6-1965, for considering the very subjects which had been on the agenda of the meeting on 22-5-1965. The petitioner has come to this court contending that at a meeting validly conducted in the circumstances stated, these subjects had been dealt with by the Panchayat Union Council and that the first respondent is not competent to call for a meeting for a consideration of these very same subjects. The decisions taken at that meeting are, it is said, the decisions of the council. The adjournment of the meeting by the Chairman was not done under proper authority, he having no individual power to adjourn the meeting, It is thus the contention of the petitioner, who is a member of the Union Council, that the first respondent, is incompetent to call for a meeting to consider these subjects which had been validly dealt with by the Union Council.

(3.) ON behalf of the Chairman, it is not denied that the first two special meetings were conducted. It is stated however that when the first subject was taken up at the ordinary meeting, the petitioner and his men obstructed the smooth proceeding of the Union Council. The first respondent also states that members belonging to both parties were very much agitated. Until 5-30 P. M. no conclusion could be arrived at. "i further held that the proceedings of the Council could not be carried on smoothly. Further, some members who came from distant villages insisted on an adjournment of the meeting since it was getting late for them to go back home. I therefore adjourned the meeting at about 5-30 p. m. recorded the same in the minutes book and announced to the members that the meeting has been adjourned. . . . . " the contention of the first respondent is accordingly that the meeting was adjourned by him for valid reasons and that he is entitled to do so. It is also claimed by him that the meeting alleged to have been conducted by the Vice chairman after the meeting was so adjourned by him, the first respondent, is not a valid one. Reference has been made to G. O. Ms. 282 R. D. and L. A. dated 199-1961, which purports to contain instructions which enabled the Chairman to adjourn any meeting of the council for valid reasons.