Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P. CHANDRA REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RAMAMURTI
S. Murugesan
Versus
The Collector of North Arcot (Inspector of Panchayat), Vellore-cum-Election authority, North Arcot & Others
W.P.No.501 of 1965
Decided On : 09-04-1996
PANCHAYAT - ELECTION - VALIDITY - NOTIFICATION - DIVISION OF VILLAGE INTO WARDS - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES - RULES PRESCRIBING SCALE - ABSENCE OF - EFFECT - ACQUIESCENCE - EFFECT - WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO - WHEN CAN BE ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, directing respondents 2 to 14 to exhibit information as to the authority under which they could perform the duties of the members of the Panchayat of Takkolam. The petitioner questioned the validity of the elections held on 28th January, 1965, on the grounds that (i) the panchayat was not validly constituted, as no notification contemplated by section 3 of the Madras Act XXXV of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued; (ii) the non-reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes had nullified the elections; and (iii) the division of the village into wards by the Inspector was without jurisdiction, as no Rules prescribing the scale in accordance with which the division was to be effected, were formulated by the Government and this had rendered all the elections void.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that (i) the panchayat was validly constituted, as the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules in Schedule IV thereof made it clear that the panchayats that were in existence at the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been declared to be panchayats and the total number of panchayat members fixed under the old Act shall be deemed to be the total number of its elected members under this Act. The sitting members also were deemed to be continuing till such date as the Government, by notification, fix in this behalf; (ii) the non-reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes did not vitiate either the division of the village into wards or elections based thereon, as section 15 of the Act vested discretion in the Inspector to give reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if it was necessary in their interests, and to give proper representation to this section of the population; (iii) the absence of Rules regulating the manner of division of the panchayat into wards did not affect the legality of the election of the members to this panchayat, as the prescribing of the scale was not compulsory and the omission to frame Rules did not absolve the Inspector from discharging the duty which was of a mandatory nature; and (iv) the petitioner was not entitled to the writ of quo warranto, as he had acquiesced in the elections being conducted on the basis of the division of wards effected by the Inspector and had not sought to strike down the division by appropriate proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the panchayat was validly constituted? 2. Whether the non-reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes nullified the elections? 3. Whether the division of the village into wards by the Inspector was without jurisdiction? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the writ of quo warranto?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules in Schedule IV thereof made it clear that the panchayats that were in existence at the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been declared to be panchayats and the total number of panchayat members fixed under the old Act shall be deemed to be the total number of its elected members under this Act. The sitting members also were deemed to be continuing till such date as the Government, by notification, fix in this behalf. 2. Section 15 of the Act vested discretion in the Inspector to give reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if it was necessary in their interests, and to give proper representation to this section of the population. 3. The prescribing of the scale was not compulsory and the omission to frame Rules did not absolve the Inspector from discharging the duty which was of a mandatory nature. 4. The petitioner had acquiesced in the elections being conducted on the basis of the division of wards effected by the Inspector and had not sought to strike down the division by appropriate proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
Chandra Reddy, C.J.
The petitioner claims the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, directing respondents 2 to 14 to exhibit information as to the authority under which they could perform the duties of the members of the Panchayat of Takkolam. The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly narrated. Takkolam is a whole revenue village of North Arcot district, which was constituted as a panchayat in 1917. Under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, it was classified as a second-class panchayat. After the Act of 1950 came into force, a notification under section 61 of that Act was issued on 22nd December, 1952, fixing the strength of the panchayat at eight exclusive of the President and there was no reserved seat for the Scheduled Castes. Subsequently, by a notification dated 8th March, 1958, the then Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, North Arcot district, fixed the strength of the panchayat at fifteen, and divided the village into five wards, allocating 4, 4, 2, 2 and 3 to Wards Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. It may be mentioned here, that this time also, no reservation was made for Scheduled Castes. This notification was considered by the panchayat and approved at its meeting held on 19th March, 1958. On 1st June, 1961, the Collector of North Arcot classified Takkolam as Class I panchayat, as required by section 5(1)(a) of Madras Act X of 1950, with effect from 1st April, 1961, since the population of that village had increased to 6,105 Meanwhile, Madras Act XXXV of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which consolidated all the law in relation to local administration, was put on the statute book. In accordance with the scale prescribed under section 10 of this enactment, the strength of the panchayat as also the number of wards was proposed to be fixed at thirteen. Even now, no reservation for the Scheduled Castes was proposed. This proposal was considered and accepted once again by the panchayat at its meeting held on 21st August, 1964, the meeting being attended by thirteen, including the petitioner and the proposal was accepted unanimously. The notification fixing the strength of the panchayat, as also the number of wards, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette Supplement, Part II, dated 9th December, 1964. Subsequently, elections were held on 28th January, 1965, and respondents 2 to 12 were declared elected.
Questioning the validity of these elections, this writ petition has been filed for the relief mentioned above. In support of this petition, three contentions are urged by Sri S. Mohan Kumaramangalam: (i) The panchayat was not validly constituted, as no notification contemplated by section 3 of the Act was issued; (ii) the non-reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes had nullified the elections; and (iii) the division of the village into wards by the Inspector was without jurisdiction, as no Rules prescribing the scale in accordance with which the division was to be effected, were formulated by the Government and this had rendered all the elections void.
We shall now deal with these points seriatim. The first contention is based on the language of sections 3 and 8 of the Act. In order to test the soundness of this argument, we have to read the provisions of these two sections. Section 3, in so far as it is relevant for this enquiry, runs as follows:
"(1) The Inspector shall by notification-
(a) classify and declare every local area comprising a revenue village or villages or any portion of a revenue village or contiguous portion of two or more revenue villages and having a population estimated at not less than five thousand and an annual income estimated at not less than ten thousand rupees as a panchayat town for the purposes of this Act."
Section 8, omitting the unnecessary portions, reads thus:
"(1) A panchayat shall be constituted for each village and for each town with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
