R K A POONURAMAN Vs. RAJAPPA MALAVARAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned District Munsif of Tiruvaiyaru in O. P. No. 25 of 1958, filed under S. 115 C.P.C. The facts are briefly these. The respondent in this civil revision petition filed an application under S. 19(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, Act X of 1950, questioning the validity of the election of the respondent in the lower court as a member of the Panchayat board. The contention of the respondent before the lower court was that on the date of the nomination, namely, 6-5-1958, as well as on the date of election, namely, 7-5-1958, the petitioner in this civil revision petition was interested in a subsisting contract made by the panchayat board, Budalore in 1955 for constructing an overhead tank in the panchayat area. The petitioner was the President of the Panchayat Board during the lease period and entered into a contract with the board in his own personal capacity to construct a water tank and not in the capacity of President. The work assigned to the said petitioner was still incomplete and he had received only part of the amount due to him. It was also alleged that the work was done for the benefit of the Panchayat Board, Budalore, that the contract was still subsisting even after the date of Act 10 of 1950. The further allegation in the petition was that the petitioner had undertaken to construct a building for the panchayat prior to entering into a contract with the board and that work was also still pending. Therefore, it was argued by the petitioner before the learned District Munsif that the petitioner had become disqualified to be a member of the panchayat, as he was interested in a subsisting contract made with the panchayat. The respondent, therefore, had prayed for a declaration that the petitioner was disqualified to be a member and consequently to be a president of the panchayat board.

(2.) The petitioner in this civil revision petition on the other hand contended that he was in no way disqualified to be elected a member on the date of nomination or on the date of election. He was not interested in any contract, much less a subsisting contract with the panchayat board, Budalore, for construction of any work for the panchayat. There was no contract entered into by him with the board as alleged before the learned District Munsif. The Government of Madras, according to the petitioner, had undertaken the work of constructing a overhead tank in the village of Budalore and had sanctioned the sum of Rs. 33,600 under the local Development scheme. That work was not entrusted to the Budalore panchayat. On the other hand it was entrusted to the petitioner, who entered into a contract with the Government of Madras for the construction of the overhead tank. It was the Government that had given him the work and the panchayat had nothing to do with the contract and so it could not be a contract with the panchayat, which alone would disqualify a person with either being nominated or elected as a president. He also contended that the work was not one, which was being done for the benefit of the panchayat, though no doubt the work was done for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village of Budalore and the adjoining villages. The petitioner further contended that the work could not be deemed to be a work for the panchayat. So, the point urged by the petitioner was that the work was being done for the Government under a contract with the Government and should not bring him within the provisions of Madras Act 10 of 1950. He also contended that his executing the contract was not in conflict with his capacity as a president or as a member of the panchayat. Until the time the Government handed over the completed work to the panchayat, the panchayat had no interest or concern over the work. He also pleaded that the petition was the result of ill-feelings between himself and the respondent by reason of the fact that the respondent failed to get himself elected as president.

(3.) The learned District Munsif framed the points for determination in the following terms: " 1. Is the respondent disqualified to be a member and president? 2. To what relief is the petitioner entitled?"