V. NAGALINGAM Vs. SIVAGNANAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by a member of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council representing Kakkarai Panchayat to quash the order of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif), Pattukottai, holding that the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the aforesaid Panchayat Union Council is valid and that he is not disqualified to stand for the election. The petitioner and the respondent, by virtue of their being elected as Presidents of Kakkarai Panchayat and Mela Ulur Panchayat respectively, became members of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council. The Panchayat Union Council consists of 58 Panchayats. In the election held for the Chairmanship of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council, the respondent was declared as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union securing 34 votes as against 17 votes got by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union in an election petition, O.P. No. 56 of 1965 on the file of the Election Tribunal, Pattukottai, and on the election petition being dismissed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. The respondent was a member as well as Director of the Labour Contract Society, Mellur, which was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. Before the date of the election, the respondent resigned his post as Director of the Labour Contract Society. But on the date notified for filing of nomination papers, the respondent continued to be a member of the Labour Contract Society. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Labour Contract Society in which the respondent was a member, has two subsisting contracts with the Panchayat Union Council, one for construction of Veterinary Hospital and another for construction of certain roads.

(3.) V .K. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, if so construed, it would adversely affect running of Co -operative Societies, and that the Legislature would not have intended such construction. He also submitted that in modern conditions many persons living in towns would be members of one or other Co -operative Society and that if the co -operative society has any subsisting contract with the Municipality a member of the Co -operative Society will be disqualified to stand for election; on such construction of the subsection. The submission of the learned Counsel is not without force. But the Court is bound to construe the sub -section according to the rules relating to interpretation of statutes. When the meaning is clear, it is not for the Court to take into consideration the consequences of such construction. Mr. V. K. Thiruvenkatachari submitted that the wording of Section 7(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before its amendment, was similar to that of Section 25(2)(c) of the Panchayat Act. It was felt that the language of Section 7(d) of the 1951 Act which provided for disqualification in case of contracts with the Government was wide and vague enough to bring any kind or category of contract within its scope and it had been a fruitful source of election disputes in the past. This state of affairs made the Legislature amend the section. The amended section provides that if there subsists a contract entered into in the course of his trade or business by him with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government, the disqualification will attach. No such amendment had been effected in respect of Section 25(2)(c) of the Panchayats Act and so, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the meaning that was given to Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before its amendment should be given to Section 25(2)(c) of the Panchayats Act. A reference to the provisions of the section in the Representation of the People Act before and after its amendment, in fact, supports the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was disqualified on the date of his election. Mr. V. K. Thiruvenkatachari very strongly relied on Lapish v. Braithwaite, L.R. (1925) 1 K.B. 470. In that case, the Court of Appeal was considering the disqualifications enacted in Section 12(1) and (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882. Section 12(1) of the Act disqualified a person for being a Councillor if and while he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any contract with the Council. By Sub -section (2) of Section 12 a person shall not be disqualified or be deemed to have any share or interest in such a contract by reason only of his having any share or interest in any company. The majority took the view that, as managing director of the company, apart from being a shareholder therein, the defendant had not directly or indirectly any share or interest in the contract, within the meaning of the section. They held that the expression "interest in a contract" would not include such an interest as a paid official of an incorporated company necessarily took in a contract by reason of the fact that it was part of his duty to make the contract and to superintend the execution of it, and that as such paid official he was interested in the success of the company. The Court observed.