Ramachandran Nair, J.

The issue that arises for consideration is whether under Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, dues towards a co-operative bank, Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank can be treated as dues towards Government. The case has come up before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court (P.R. Raman, J.) doubting the correctness of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramachandran v. Omanakuttan 2002 (3) K.L.T. 603.

2. The revision petitioner was elected to the Bella Grama Panchayath in the election held on 26-9-2005 from Ward No.II. Challenging the election of the revision petitioner, the first respondent filed an election petition under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The election was sought to be set aside on the ground that the elected candidate was disqualified under Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to contest the election. It was alleged that she was a loanee of the Kasaragod Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and there were dues to be payable to that hank and hence the disqualification under Section 34(1)(j) is attracted. The apparent allegation was that the bank is advancing loans in terns of the agreement entered into with the Government and the Government is a guarantor also and therefore the amount due to the bank has to be considered as amount due to the Government. There were other grounds also.

3. The learned Munsiff as per judgment dated 7-11-2006 partly allowed the petition setting aside the election on the finding that she was disqualified to become a Member of the Panchayat under Section 34(1)(j) of the Act. In appeal by the revision petitioner, the judgment of the learned Munsiff was upheld by the District Judge, Kasaragod. In both judgments, reliance was placed on the dictum laid down in the decision reported in 2002 (3) K.L.T. 603, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that amount due to a primary co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank is arrears due to the Government.

4. The learned Single Judge while referring the matter to the Division Bench, has also noticed the reliance placed by the petitioner herein on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Returning Officer v. Chamiyar 2006 (2) K.L.T. 878 wherein the Bench held that a disqualification under Section 34(1)(j) is not attracted as the amount was due to a Service Co-operative Bank and not to the Government or to the Panchayat. It was also noticed in the reference order that the decision of the learned Single Judge in 2002 (3) K.L.T. 603 had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench in that case.

5. We heard Shri D. Krishnaprasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Shri Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged dues cannot be characterized as dues to the Government for the purpose of Section 34(1)(j) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, as the amount of loan was taken only from the co-operative bank in question. It was submitted that being a provision concerning disqualification to contest the election only an interpretation after taking the plain meaning of the provision can be adopted and as the Statute has only included within its purview arrears due to the Government or the Panchayat concerned and has not specifically included any other kind of dues. The meaning cannot be widened so as to rope in other dues like dues towards co-operative bank. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Thampanoor Ravi v. Charupara Ravi 1999 (3) K.L.T. 487 and Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. 2007 (3) K.L.T. 302 in support of the above argument. It was therefore submitted that even if the Government is a guarantor, it cannot cloth the character of a dues to the Government.

6. Per contra Shri Kodoth Sreedharan learned counsel for