A P KADIRVELU NAIKER Vs. K M LAKSHMANA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions, filed under Art. 226 of the constitution the petitioner is an elected counciller of the Arcot Municipal Council and the first respondant is also a councillor and chairman of the said Municipal Council. The prayer in W. P. No. 1115 of 1961 is for the issue of awrit in the nature of quo warranto questioning the right of first reaspondent to hold 0office as chairman of the Council. The releif sought for in W. P. 1117 of 1961 is one for the issue of the writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the commisioner of the municipal Council Arcot to comply with the privisions of Sec. 50 (4) of the District municipal Act.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the first respondent has become disqualified to continue as member of the Munucipal Council, Arcot and a fortiori to function as the Chairman. The ground of disqualification urged is that the first respondent absented himself from the meetings of the Council for a period of three months consectively since the date he attented on 12-4-1961. The first respondent denies having become subject to any disqualification. He submits that he attented a meeting of the council on 17-6-1961 and through this meetings was a special meeting under Rule 8 of Sch III Of The Madras District municipalities Act, it was not a meeting covered by the Exaplanation to S. 50 of that Act and that his attendence at such meeting saves him from the disqualification arising out of non-attendence of meetings. There is thus a dispute between the parties as to whether the first respondent is disented to hold office under S. 50 (1) (i) of the District Municipalities Act. That provision reads as follows : "subject to the provisions of S. 5, a councillor shall cease to hold his office, if he. . . . . . . . . . . . . (i) absents himself from the meeting of the Council for aperiod of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of commencement of his term of office, or the lasdt meeting which he attented or of his restoration of office as councillor under sub-sec. (4), as the case may be, or if with in the said period less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from three consecutive meetings held after the said date. " section 50 (4) provides, "where a person ceases to be a Councillor under clause (i) of subsection (i), the executive authority shall at once intimate the fact in writing to such person and report the same to the Council at its next meetings. If such person applies for restoration suo motu to the Council on before the date of its next meetings or within 15 days of the receipt of such application restore him to his office councillor. "

(3.) THE Act provides a machinery for adjudication of disputes arising out of an alleged disqualification of any member to hold office, and that is S. 51. It is as follows :