MAKKAN Vs. VEDANDI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which arises for determination in these two writ petitions concerns the construction of R. 10 (3) (iii) of the rules relating to the conduct of election of members to Panchayats made under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. The petitions originally came on for hearing before Rajagopalan J. but, as he was inclined to take a view of the relevant provision which was different from the view which had already been taken by Balakrishna Ayyar J. in Karia Gounder v. State of Madras W.P. No. 303 of 1958, he made a reference of the case for disposal by a Division Bench. R. 10 (3) (iii) runs thus :

(2.) IT may, however, be mentioned that the learned Judge did not decide the petition before him on the point, because in the case before him, the election was not yet over. What exactly he would have held, it is difficult to be certain about, - -whether he would have held that Cl. (c) would prevail over the latter part of Cl. (b) or that on account of the irreconcilable inconsistency between Cl. (b) and Cl. (c), both are invalid.

(3.) RAJAGOPALAN , J., was not so much oppressed by the inconsistency as Balakrishna Aiyar, J., was. This is what he said :