A BAKTHAVATHSALU NAIDU Vs. PNKRAMANUJA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The propriety of the conviction of the petitioner under Section 208, Madras, Local Boards Act depends upon the validity of the meeting of the Panchayat held on 8 June 1931 at which a majority of ten members out of fifteen passed a resolution of no-confidence. If that meeting was validly called and held, then the petitioner must be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, Section 44(4)(a), and as he admittedly failed to hand over the documents etc. to his successor he must be held guilty of an offence under Section 208(3) of the Act. I cannot accept the argument of Mr. Ethiraj that even if he had ceased to be the President, he nevertheless purported to continue to act as the President, and therefore could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Local Government. Its seems to me self vident that a person who has ceased to be President can thenceforth neither act, non purport to act, though he may pretend to act as President.

(2.) The validity of the meeting held on 8 June 1931 is dependent on the validity of the meeting held on 28 May 1931 at which leave to make a motion of no confidence was given to one of the members. The meeting held on 28 May 1931 was convened by the President of the Taluk Board, who took action (under the orders of the President of the District Board) because the petitioner had disobeyed the order of the President of the District Board to hold a meeting on 21 May 1931. It is quite clear that the President of the District Board had no power to direct the petitioner to summon a meeting on any particular day. Under Section 41 (1) if the petitioner made default in performing any duty imposed on him by the Act the Local Government could by order in writing fix a period for the performance of such duty by the petitioner. And under Section 41(2) if the petitioner failed to perform the duty within the period so fixed, the Local Government could appoint some person to perform it. The petitioner being the President of a Panchayat, these powers of the Local Government could be exercised by the President of the Taluk Board ( Section 42(b) ); but there is no room for the intervention of the President of the District Board. Even the President of the Taluk Beard could only have (a) fixed some period within which the petitioner should perform the omitted duty and (b) on failure appoint some person to perform it.

(3.) It appears to me therefore that the meeting of 28 May 1931 was not validly summoned; consequently the leave then granted to move a resolution of no-confidence at the meeting of 8 June was not valid, and the resolution of no-confidence itself was invalid. It follows that the petitioner did not vacate his office on 8 June and the conviction under Section 208(3), Local Boards Act, is wrong.