B.R. VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs. N. MANICKAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 233 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner, who filed the nomination to the Bhavani Panchayat from Ward No. 8 against the order of the Election Court in O.P. No. 9 of 1965 setting aside the election to the Ward and ordering fresh election. Writ Petition No. 234 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner who filed the nomination for election to the Bhavani Town Panchayat from Ward No. 10 against the order of the Election Court in O.P. No. 11 of 1965 setting aside his election and ordering fresh election to the Ward. C.R.P. No. 323 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner who filed the nomination for Ward No. 9 against the order of the Election Court, Erode, in O.P. No. 10 of 1965 setting aside his election and directing fresh election.

(2.) THE two writ petitions and the civil revision petition raise the same question and can be dealt with together. The petitioners in the writ petitions and the Civil Revision Petitioner filed nominations for Ward Nos. 8,10 and 9 respectively. The 1st respondent filed his nomination for all the three wards. At the time of the scrutiny of nomination papers, the Executive Officer of the Bhavani Town Panchayat reported to the Returning Officer that a sum of Rs. 634 -78 was due from the 1st respondent to the Panchayat as per the final decree dated 16th October, 1963 in O.S. No. 416 of 1954 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Erode. The Returning Officer accepted the objection and rejected the nomination of the 1st respondent on 18th January, 1965. The 1st respondent preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was also dismissed on 22nd January, 1965. The other contesting respondents in all the wards withdrew their nominations and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 233 and 234 of 1966, and C.R.P. No. 323 of 1966 were declared elected for the respective wards. The 1st respondent filed O.P. Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1965 challenging the rejection of his nomination in the three wards. The Election Court held that the decree amount due by the 1st respondent cannot be held to be arrears of any kind as envisaged under Section 25(2)(g) of the Panchayat Act. It also found that the amount due by the 1st respondent was in a fiduciary capacity and as such he was exempted from the disqualification under Section 25(2)(g). It further held that no notice as contemplated under Section 25(2)(g) was given to the 1st respondent. The correctness of the decision of the Election Court is challenged in these writ petitions and Civil Revision Petition on various grounds.

(3.) SECTION 25 of the Panchayats Act enumerates the disqualifications of candidates for election as members to the Panchayat. Section 25(2)(g) provides that;