Back
1963 Supreme(AP) 100
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR
R.Ramachandra Naidu - Appellant
Versus
G.N.Pattabhi Reddy, President, Panchayat Samithi, Gangadhara Nellore, Chittoor - Respondent
Decided On : 07-01-63
The ex-officio membership of a Panchayat President in the Panchayat Samithi ceases not only upon the cessation of their office as President but also if they become subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act.
Headnote:
PANCHAYAT SAMITHIS AND ZILLA PARISHADS ACT - SECTION 4(1)(I), 9(D), 10, 11 - DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS - PRESIDENT OF PANCHAYAT - EX-OFFICIO MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT SAMITHI - CESSATION OF MEMBERSHIP - NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION - SECTION 33(12) - VALIDITY - VOTES CAST BY DISQUALIFIED MEMBERS.
Fact of the Case:
Four members of the Gangadhara Nellore Panchayat Samithi, who were also Presidents of Panchayats within the Samithi's jurisdiction, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, seeking a declaration that they had not become disqualified to continue as members. The District Munsif adjudicated that they had become disqualified under Section 10 read with Section 9(d) of the Act and had ceased to be members of the Samithi. They challenged this decision in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 10 of the Act clearly provides that a member of a Panchayat Samithi shall cease to be a member if he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Section 9. The reference in Section 10 to the disqualifications specified in Section 9 does not exclude ex-officio members from its scope. The provisions of Proviso (a) to Section 4(1)(i) and Sub-section (3-A) of Section 10 further support this interpretation.
Issues: 1. Whether the ex-officio membership of a Panchayat President in the Panchayat Samithi ceases only upon the cessation of their office as President? 2. Whether the votes cast by disqualified members in a no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat Samithi can be considered valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 10 of the Act applies to all members of the Panchayat Samithi, including ex-officio members, and their membership ceases if they become subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Section 9. The reference in Section 10 to the disqualifications specified in Section 9 is merely a referential incorporation and does not exclude ex-officio members from its scope. 2. The Court held that the votes cast by the four members who were subsequently found to be disqualified were valid at the time of the no-confidence motion. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 provides that pending a decision on disqualification by the District Munsif, the member shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified. This fiction is designed to save the proceedings of the Samithi from being vitiated due to subsequent disqualification of members.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the four members challenging their disqualification. It also issued a writ of mandamus directing the Government to take immediate action under Section 33(12) of the Act, as a no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat Samithi had been carried with the support of three-fifths of the total members.
( 2 ) SECTION 4 (1) (i) of the Act provides that in the Andhra area, the President of every panchayat shall be a member of the Panchayat Samithi, ex-officio. During their membership of the Samithi, a question was raised as to their having become disqualified to continue as members. As the Petitioners were in doubt as to whether they had become so disqualified, they filed a petition before the District Munsif at chittoor under section 11 of the Act. The District Munsif adjudicated that they had become disqualified under section 10 of the Act read with section 9 (d) of it and had therefore ceased to be members of the Panchayat Samithi. The Petitioners who are aggrieved by this decision have come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for getting it set aside.
( 3 ) THE principal ground taken in the Revision Petitions is that, a Panchayat president who is an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samithi will not cease to be a member of the Samithi unless and until he ceases to be President of the Panchayat. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel is that, cesser of their membership of the Samithi could come about only as a result of the petitioners losing their office of President of Panchayats and that therefore so long as they were not found to be disqualified to hold that office, they could not be held to have become disqualified to continue as members of the Samithi. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cited the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Balakota Reddy v. Satyanarayana Rao, (1962) 2 A. L. T. 157. This decision does not appear to me to have been rendered under section 10 of the Act. It seems to proceed on the basis that a person who is the President of a panchayat on the date of the constitution of the Samithi will ipso facto become a member of the Samithi on that date. In other words, it holds that section 9 will not affect the statutory right of the President of a Panchayat to become an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samithi. It is not necessary for me in the present case to deal with this aspect of the matter. I am here concerned only with the scope and application of section 10 of the Act which comes into effect only after a person becomes a member of the Samithi. No doubt, there are certain observations in the decision above cited which seem to lend support to the contention of the petitioner s learned counsel that even the provisions of section 10 will not apply to the case of a person who becomes a member of the Samithi on account of his being the President of a Panchayat. But I do not think the learned Judge intended to lay down the law that way. If he did, I should consider the decision to have been rendered incuriam which need not therefore be followed even by him, not to speak of other Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It is well established that, to a decision given per incuriam the principle of comity of judgments will not apply. In Nicholas v. Penny, L. R. (1950) 2 K. B. 466. the Court of Appeal had to consider this question. Lord Grddard, Chief Justice, made the following observations at pages 472-473 :". . . . . . . . it has been laid down by the Court of Appeal in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. , ltd. , L. R. (1944) 1 K. B. 718 at 729. which has been followed quite recently in this Court, that where material cases or statutory provisions, which show that a
