S T DIRAVIAM Vs. V P CHELLIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of india, to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 28. 11. 1986 in Election O. P. 2 of 1986, holding that the election of the petitioner as a member of the Aalankulam Panchayat Union is opposed to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) and therefore his election is invalid.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this civil revision petition may be briefly set out. THE election to the Aalankulam Panchayat Union took place on 23. 2. 1986. THE petitioner and the first respondent herein contested that election from the 8th ward of Aalankulam Panchayat Union. THE petitioner was declared elected on 25. 2. 1986. In election O. P. No. 2 of 1986, the first respondent challenged the election of the petitioner as being opposed to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, and the rules framed thereunder, on the ground that the petitioner was a lessee in respect of certain shops belonging to the said Panchayat Union during the relevant period and that he had also taken on lease the right to collect fees in respect of a toilet located in the bus-stand belonging to Aalankulam Panchayat Union and as such interested in a subsisting contract. It was also further claimed by the first respondent that the petitioner was in arrears in a sum of Rs. 3,216 in respect of the rents payable for the lease of the shops and also a sum of Rs. 803 towards the colletion of fees in respect of the toilet in the bus-stand. This, according to the first respondent, disqualified the petitioner under sec. 25 (2) (c) and (g) of the Act, but this was suppressed by the petitioner resulting in the improper acceptance of his nomination, as a result of which he was allowed to contest the election wherein he was also declared successful. THE first respondent, therefore, claimed that the election of the petitioner was vitiated owing to the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the commission of corrupt practices, which deserved the setting aside of the election of the petitioner.

(3.) WHETHER the petitioner is also disqualified under sec. 25 (2) (c) and (g) of the Act with reference to his right to collect the fees in respect of the toilet in the bus-stand owned by the Panchayat Union may now be considered. Though it appears to have been debated before the Court below that the right secured by the petitioner was only in the nature of a licence and therefore that would not attract Sec. 25 (2) (c) of the Act, it is unnecessary to embark upon an enquiry into the character of the transaction as such, for, it is at once evident that whether the transaction is a lease or a licence, it held out a possibility-nay, even a high degree of probability of actual resulting benefit to the petitioner by the exploitation of the toilet belonging to Panchayat Union. That would be sufficient to create an interest in favour of the petitioner in respect of the work being done for the Panchayat Union council as to attract the disqualification enacted in Sec. 25 (2) (c) of the Act. However, a careful perusal of the entries in Ex. A5 do not establish that the petitioner was also in arrears to attract the disqualification provided for under Sec. 25 (2) (g) of the Act as well, for, it is seen that though the petitioner had secured the right to collect the fees in respect of the use of the toilet in the bus-stand for the year 1984-85 to 1986-87, he was not in arrears except for the year 1986-87, and that period would admittedly fall after the year relevant for the purpose of Sec. 25 (2) (g) of the Act.