- (1.)The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.7.2009 and further forbear the respondents 2 to 16 from attending the meeting of the Municipal Council of Chengalpattu Municipality as they are disqualified to hold the post of Councilors of Chengalpattu Municipality.
(2.)The case of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition in nutshell is stated hereunder:
2.1 The petitioner is a Chairman of the Chengalpattu Municipality. Besides her, there are 32 Ward Councilors, of which 15 Councilors are respondents 2 to 16 in this Writ Petition.

2.2 Section 50(i) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 deals with disqualification of Chairman or Councilors. A reading of Section 50(i) would render a Councilor disqualified if he absents for three consecutive meetings of the last meeting which he attended and in case he is so disqualified, the first respondent should intimate such Councilor the factum of his disqualification in writing and report the same to the council at its meeting. If the disqualified Councilior applied for restoration suo motu to the council on or before the next date of the meeting within 15 days of the receipt of the information, the council may at the next meeting restore him or her to the said office.

2.3 The respondents 2 to 16 did not attend the council meeting on 2.3.2009 and 29.5.2009. For the meeting held on15.7.2009, the respondents 2 to 16, after receiving the notice sent by the 1st respondent just before the meeting commenced came to the chamber of the petitioner or came to the meeting hall, signed the attendance register and immediately went out of the municipal office building. Thus, consecutively they did not attend the meeting held on 2.3.2009, 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009. The petitioner therefore addressed a communication to the first respondent on 29.7.2009 about the said fact, but however, a reply was sent by the first respondent dated 30.7.2009 stating that the respondents 2 to 16 were not disqualified, in view of the fact that they did attend the meeting. Therefore, the petitioner was obliged to approach this Court byfiling the present writ petition.

(3.)Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 13th respondent, wherein the following facts have been set out:
3.1 The Councilors have moved the authorities for taking necessary action against the petitioner, who by her illegal act had defeated the purpose of reservation and holds the post of Chairman of the first respondent, which she is not entitled to. The representation made to the first respondent for disqualification is because the respondents 2 to 16 have moved the authorities for her removal. He attended the meeting along with other Councilors and placed on record the protest for the subjects as well as protested for the Chairman heading the Council meeting because she does not have the qualification to hold the said post.

3.2 The meeting held on 2.3.2009 would not come within the purview of the routine council meeting, since the same was an urgent meeting. As regards the council meeting held on 29.5.2009, he was present along with other Councilors at the time of schedule for council meeting. The petitioner had taken away the attendance register and the respondents 2 to 16 could not sign the register. On 15.7.2009, council meeting was to be held and the agenda for the same was circulated. The councilors attended the meeting on 15.7.2009, signed the attendance register and thereafter protested for the various resolutions. Thus, the records will amply prove that the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the council meeting on 15.7.2009. The counter affidavit, therefore, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.