M. MANI Vs. A. SELLAMUTHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.P. No. 40 of 1965 on the file of the Election Tribunal cum the District Munsif of Ariyalur and for quashing the order passed by the second respondent on 6th December, 1965. The petitioner is a member of the Ariyalur Panchayat having been elected from Ward No. 11 on 31st January, 1965. The first respondent was also elected as a member from Ward No. 6. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 40 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif '& Court Ariyalur, under Section 28(1) of Madras Act XXXV of 1958 alleging that the petitioner and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 19th July, 1962 with the common object of obstructing the State Government Officers from attending to their work and in the course of the agitations squatted on the entrance of the Ariyalur Revenue Divisional Officer's office obstructing the officers from going into the office, an offence punishable under Section 143. Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1)(a), of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. For that offence the petitioner was tried and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months on each; count on 16th August, 1962. It was contended by the first respondent that the. offence involved moral delinquency and therefore the petitioner was disqualified from being a member of the Panchayat.

(2.) THE Election Tribunal cum District Munsif agreed with the contentions of the first respondent and held that the petitioner was disqualified from being a member. This petition is preferred against that order.

(3.) MR . Sundaralingam, learned Counsel for the first respondent, relied on a decision of this Court in Chelladorai v. Sornam, (1964) I M.L.J. 55. In that case the first respondent, Who was sought to be declared as unqualified, was convicted and sentenced in a Sessions case for offence under Section 120 -B read with Sections 109 and 121 Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to five years R.I. The question was whether the first respondent in that case had served out his sentence, and stood for the election only after a period of five years from the date of release. As the petitioner did not establish that the first respondent was not released earlier than five years prior to the date of election, the matter was remanded for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to produce the records relating to the date of release of the first respondent. The Court itself observed that the order of remand would dispose of the petition, but proceeded to make certain, observations regarding offences involving moral delinquency, which were obiter in nature The case with which the Court was concerned in the above case was one of blowing up of a railway bridge and an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, a crime of very grave nature. The acts are admittedly antisocial in nature involving moral delinquency. This decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case.