VENKAT REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Presidentship of Panchayat Samithi, Kavali, took place on 9-6-81. In those elections, Sri Ayyapa Reddy was elected as the President of the Panchayat Samithi. It was subsequent to that election, six members were elected by the socalled method of co option on 27-6-1981 in which the candidates set up by the President Ayyapa Reddy were defeated, and the present writ petitioner Venkat Reddy who is in the opposite camp to the President, Panchayat Samithi, Sri Ayyapa Reddy was elected as the Vice President of the Kavali Panchayat Samithi. In the above mentioned co-option elections the candidates set up by the Vice President were elected. At least by the date of co-option it has become clear that the President Pyyapa Reddy had lost the majority support of the members of the Panchayat Samithi. Subsequently, the general body meeting of the Panchayat Samithi was summoned to meet on 7-8-1981 and its adjourned meeting was held on 13-8-1981. It was the first and the last general body meeting convened and held by the President of the Panchayat Samithi, Kavali. For well over one year, the general body of the Panehayat Samithi, Kavali, did not meet.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Vice President of the Kavali Panchayat Samithi for ousting the President of the Kavali Panchayat Samithi on the ground that the President had ceased to hold his office of the President, Panchayat Samithi under section 22 (7) of the A.P. Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act. 1959. Section 22 (7) to the above Act reads thus : ''It shall be the duty of the President or the person for the time being exercising the powers and performing the functions of the President to convene the meetings of the Panchayat Samithi so that at least one meeting of the Panchayat Samithi is held in every ninety-days. If the President or such person fails to discharge that duty with the result that no meeting is held within the said period of ninety days or within thirty days following such period he shall with effect from the date of expiration of the thirty days aforesaid, cease to be the President, or as the case may be cease to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the President unless such cessation has occurred before that date, and for a period of one year from such date he shall not be eligible to be elected as President or to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the President."

(3.) The argument of the petitioner, Vice-President of the Panchayat Samithi is that the President had failed to discharge his duty of holding a meeting within 90 days or within 30 days grace period from the date of the last general bodv meeting on 13-8-81 and had thus suffered cessation of his office. It is admitted in para 4 of the writ petition that the President had convened the general body meeting on 4-1-1982. But the general body of the Panchayat Samithi could not be held for want of quorum. Simila rly, the third respondent had issued another notice convening the meeting of the general body of the Panchayat Samithi to be held on 29-3-1982. The said notice convening the meeting was dated 17-3-1982. The petitioner says that for reason that no meeting was held within 120 days from the first and the last meeting of the general body held on 13-8-1981, the third respondent should be deemed to have suffered automatic cessation of his office of the President, Panchayat Samithi. Even from the facts which have been admitted in the writ petition and stated before me by Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the President had not suffered any cessation of his office. For the application of section 22 (7) resulting in cessation of office of the President, two things must be satisfied. Firstly, the President must have failed to convene the general body meeting of the Panchayat Samithi. Secondly the failure to hold the meeting of the general body of the Panchayat Samithi should be the direct result of the failure of the President to convene the meeting of the Panchayat Samithi during the relevant period of 120 days. In otherwords, the language of section 22 Cl. 7 would be attracted and cessation of office would take place if the abovementioned two events take place. If the President had convened the meeting in time, but no meeting took place by reason of the failure of the members to attend the convened meeting Section 22 Cl. 7 would not be attracted to that situation. In that situation no cessation of office can legally take place. One should note that Section 22 Cl. 7 is a penal provision. It results not only in cessation of office of the President but also in a statutory disqualification of ineligibility to be elected as a President for a period of one year. The ordinary rules of interpretation, therefore, would call for & strict interpretation of those provisions. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Block Development Officer, Kavali Panchayat Samithi, he denied that the last general body meetingjwas held on 13-8-81. In the counter affidavit of the Block Development Officer it was asserted that the President had convened special meetings of the general body for the constitution of Standing Committees on 29-9-81, 26-12-81, within the stipulated periud of 120 days, but those meetings did not take place for want of quorum. The argument of Mr. Ramachandra Reddy is that an adjourned meeting should be counted as no meeting at all. On that basis he argued that no meeting should be taken to have been held after the first and the last general body meeting on 13-8-1981. He therefore argues that seen from the single eye of the law the President should be held to have suffered disqualification on the ground mentioned in Section 22 Cl. 7 of the above said Act. Nothing appears to me to be farther from justice than this submission. The argument of the learned counsel seeks to hold the President responsible for an act which he has never committed. Beyond the power of convening the meeting the President has no power or competence to compel the members to attend to such meetings against their wish. Without such powers being kept in the hands of the President, law cannot hold the President responsible for the absence of the members at such meetings. I would have held that something is seriously wrong with the one- eye sight of the law, if it held the President is responsible for the members' absence, calling for an emergency surgical operation by the legislature or even total blinding by the judiciary ; for no thing can be more unjust than to dethrone an electee to a public office and declare him ineligible for one year on the basis of happpening of an event which he never wished for nor was responsible in any way. If the members of the Panchayat Samilhi do not choose to attend, what can a poor President do? It will be wholly unjust to hold for reason of such an event the President responsible and remove him from office and render him ineligible to be elected as President of the Panchyat Samithi for one year. Fortunately, the real situation it not so alarming. Section 22 Cl. 7 of the Act clearly says that cessation of office will take place and penalty of ineligibility will attach itself to the President only in case where the two evil planets join in conjunction leading to the failure of the President to convene the meeting resulting in no meeting being held. As said above, where the President has convened a meeting, but the members, for reasons of their own, did not choose to attend such meeting the law cannot obviously penalise the President for that situation. It follows that even though no meeting had taken place from 13 8 1981 the President of the Kavali Panchayat Samithi cannot be held to have suffered any cessation of office and any disability of being elected. So long he has been convening the meetings regularly within the stipulated period of 120 days, the President does not lose his office. Whether an adjourned meeting should be counted as a meeiing or not, would not be relevant for the above discussion. A judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Seetharamaiah vs. Ongole Co-op Bank cited by the counsel for the petitioner will be inapplicable and irrelevant for the decision in this case. In that case the question was whether an adjourned meeting of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society should be counted as one of the meetings of the Managing Committee of co-operative society which a member failed to attend. The disqualifying rule in the Co-operative Society Act provided for an automatic cessation of office in a member of the managing comittee of a Co-operative Society who fails to attend three consecutive meetings of that managing committee. The Division Beneh held that among the three meetings the adjourned meeting is not one. It held that an ajourned meeting was no meeting. That case shows that a penalising provision should be strictly interpreted and in favour of the intended victim. In view of the fact that the President of the Kavali Panchayat Samithi hag been convening the general body meetings of the Panchayat Samithi once in 120 days, I hold that S. 22 Cl. 7 of the Act is not attracted and this writ petition should fail. It may be that the functioning of the so-called grass-root level democracy is impeded. Kavali Panchayat Samithi has not been working for over an year. But for that sad result, the President of the Panchatyat Samithi can no more be held responsible than the over ambitious, pomp-loving and profit-seeking members of the Panchayat Samithi. Clearly public service is not their prime object. There is nothing which a court of law can do to repair this alarming situation. The ultimate appeal could only be to the decency of social conscience.