MADDUR MUNISWAMI CHETTY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, LAND REVENUE AND SETTLEMENT AND THE COLLECTOR OF CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by Maddur Muniswami Chetty praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue and Settlement, Madras (1 respondent), and the Collector of Chittoor (2nd respondent), and to call for the entire records in connection with the proceedings taken against the petitioner which resulted in the removal of the petitioner from his position as a member of a Panchayat Court, and to quash the proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner was one of the members of the Panchayat Court of Tirupathi. The President of the Court sent up a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was guilty of certain specific misconduct and that he was not a fit person to continue as a member of the Panchayat Court. The petitioner in his turn sent up a petition against the President of the said Court charging him with irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and other specific acts mentioned in that petition. The Collector of Chittoor directed the Tahsildar of Chandragiri Taluk to enquire into the matter of both the petitions after giving due notice to the petitioners. The Tahsildar, it is alleged, gave notice to the petitioner as well as the President in respect of both the above petitions, and after taking the depositions of several witnesses sent up the records to the Collector. The Collector passed orders on the 8 October, 1929, to the following effect: M.R.Ry. Madduru Muniswami Chetty Gam is a member of the Village Panchayat Court at Tirupathi. He is found to be quarrelsome within the Court during the conduct of its business. His membership of the Court is clearly prejudicial to its efficiency and reputation. He is therefore removed under Section 8 of the Madras Village Courts Act, 1889, from the membership of the Court, with effect from the date of this order.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon appealed to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal by its resolution, dated 12 February, 1930. The Board remarked that "it has perused the appeal petition and the connected records" and that it "considered that the appellant is unsuitable to be a member of the Panchayat Court". The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Muniswami Chetty filed the present application to the High Court, and in the affidavit that he filed in support of his application he made allegations to the effect that no notice was given to him of the enquiry by the Tahsildar, that the enquiry was conducted in his absence, and at one stage when he was present he was directed to stand outside the building while the Tahsildar was examining certain witnesses. In effect he complained that the enquiry by the Tahsildar did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The affidavit also went further and specifically stated that no formal charges were framed either by the Tahsildar or by the Collector and that he had no opportunity of either explaining the evidence against him or to adduce evidence in his favour which he wanted to adduce. He also complained that his counsel was not given an opportunity to argue his appeal before the Board. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made in the affidavit, we issued notice to both the respondents, namely, the Board of Revenue and the Collector. When this matter came before us on a former occasion, we had before us only the affidavit of the petitioner and also the affidavit filed by the Collector in answer to the allegations contained in the petitioner's affidavit. We thought that it would be more satisfactory if an affidavit from the Tahsildar who conducted the enquiries in this case under the orders of the District Collector could be filed, if available. Now we have got an affidavit sworn to by the Tahsildar, and the petitioner has filed his reply affidavit with reference to the Tahsildar's affidavit.