A RAJANGAM Vs. A MOHAMMED HANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Vridhachalam Municipality in the year 1996. THE first respondent filed a petition in O. P. No. 15 of 1999 under Section 51 (1) of the tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 to decide about the disqualification of the petitioner, under section 50 (1) (d) of the said Act. According to the 1st respondent, who is the Councilor of the said municipality, the petitioner's undivided son and his undivided brother are registered contractors of the said municipality on and from 25. 10. 1996 on which date the petitioner was elected as chairman. On that basis it was alleged that the petitioner has acquired an interest in the subsisting contract with the Vridhachalam municipality and so he has to be disqualified, to hold the said post under section 50 (1) (d) of the said Act.

(2.) THE said petition was contested but the petitioner alleging that he did not acquire any interest in the subsisting contract with respect to the allegation regarding his son and brother. It is the case of the petitioner that they are divided brother and divided son, and so the averments made in the said petition with respect to his disqualification cannot be sustained. the learned District Judge in the order dated 4. 10. 99 found that palanisami is the undivided son with whom the petitioner had common interest and the contract was subsisting during the time of office as Chairman, held by the petitioner. On the basis of the said finding the learned District Judge allowed that petition holding that he is disqualified from holding the post of chairman if Vridhachalam municipality. Having aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition, challenging the said order of the learned district Judge.

(3.) THE learned District Judge in the order dated 4. 10. 1999 has simply proceeded on the basis that" we have already held that as undivided members of a Hindu joint family both the first respondent (the petitioner herein) and his son Palanisamy could naturally have common interest. THErefore, law and ethics require that in order to avoid suspicion in the public mind, one has to sever from the other hand and person holding the public office to act disinterestedly.