KONDALA RAO Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT KOTHAPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A simple but interesting question of law arises in this civil revision petition The question is when does a member of the Gram Panchayat cease to hold the office as such when he has allegedly incurred a disqualification under Section 20 (j) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act (Act 2 of 1964) hereinafter called 'the Act.' Is it after the member is intimated, in writing, by the Executive authority of the alleged disqualification incurred by him as required under Section 22 of the Act, or immediately on the day he has incurred the said disqualification, whether the member is intimated or not and whether he disputes it or not? The facts giving rise to this question are short and simple. The petitioner is a Member of the Gram Panchayat, Kothapet, He was elected as such in the year 1970. The petitioner carries on business in fire works. He used to obtain the required licence from the Gram Panchayat every year. In the year 1972-73, he did not obta'n any such licence. On 3. 11. 1972, the Executive Officer inchargs issued a notice to the petitioner informing him that he had not renewed the licence for his fire works business remitting the licence fee therefore, it was also mentioned in the said notice that if he failed to pay the licence fee, steps would be taken to prosecute him under Section 220 (1) of the Act. The petitioner paid the licence fee on

(2.) 5. 1975, and he was granted the renewal for ths year 1972-73. Subsequently, the petitioner functioned as a Member of the Gram Panchayat till 13-10-1973 It appears, sometime in August 1973, the petitioner also signed a notice of no-confidence along with some others against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On 13-12-1973 the petitioner received a notice from the Executive Officer intimating him that since he failed to pay the arrears of the licence fee within 90 days of the receipt of the notice issued to him on 3. 11. 1972, he ceased to be a member under Section 20 (j) of the Act. The petitioner then filed O.P.No. 10 of 1973, before the Munsiff Magistrate, Kothapet. disputing the allegation of disqualification. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the said decision, the petitioner has filed this civil revision petition. The principal and the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that a member of a Gram Panchayat does not cease to hold office as such until he is intimated by the Executive Officer of the alleged disqualification suffered by him under Section 20 (j) of the Act and that if before the said intimation the member has paid the arrears of dues due by him, the member does not become disqualified and does not cease to hold office as sucb In support of his submission, be invited my attention to the executive instructions issued by the Government in Govt. Memo No. 3290/pt-165, I.P.R. dated 1-11-1965 which reads as follows:...

(3.) Under Section 22, a member has to be intimated in writing by the executive through the District Panchayat Officer. If the member questions the correctness of the allegation made or himself entertains any doubt whether or not he has incurred any disqualification under the provisions of the Act, the member within a period of 2 months from the date of such intimation, may apply to the District Munsiff having jurisdiction over the area for decision. As per sub-section (2) of Section 22. pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or were not disqualified. It is thus clear that a member does not cease to hold office as such the moment he allegedly suffers a disqualification under Section 20(j) of the Act. The intimation of the same in writing to the member by the executive authority through the District Panchayat Officer is absolutely essential. The disqualification interposts and the member shall cease to hold office as such if no application is filed by the member before the judicial authouty disputing the correctness of the disqualification alleged to have been incurred, within two months from the date of such intimation. I must, however, hasten to explain that this does not mean that in cases where the disqualification is patent, such as a convict or a person of unsound mind, a deaf-mute or a leper or an insolvent, etc , the member will continue to be so until an application is filed disputing the said disqualification.