1. The averments contained in the petition filed under Section 50 and 51 of the District Municipalities Act 1920 are as follows:-

1.(a) This petition is filed to disqualify the second respondent from holding the post of Chairman on the ground of having an interest in a subsisting contract made with his wife and father. The petitioner is councillor duly elected in the election conducted on 110. 2006 for the ward 28, of the Virudhachalam Municipality. The second respondent is the Chairman of the Virudhachalam Municipality, who was elected on 210. 2006. His wife Mrs. Latha and his undivided father V.K. Kaliyaperumal are registered contractors of the said municipality and carrying on the work of municipality by offering tenders. They accepted a contract for providing BT surface to Kannadasan Street, Tiruvalluvar Street 1 & 2 and Dr. Lucas Street and are carrying on the contract.

1.(b) The second respondent after becoming the Chairman of the Virudhachalam Municipality, called for an urgent meeting on 11. 2006 and passed a resolution to delete the names of his wife and father from the registered contractors Register of Virudhachalam Municipality and the same was recorded in the resolution by the members of the Virudhachalam Municipality. The second respondent had subsisting interest over the said contract, which was given to his wife and father and released cheques dated 112. 2006 and 2. 2007 to his wife and father for the contract. He has an interest in a subsisting contract which was allotted to his wife and father, while he was the Chairman of Virudhachalam Municipality.

1.(c) He acted in an unethical manner and with the intention of love and affection with his family members he acquired the interest in public contract matters and thereby violated the provisions which could be brought under Section 50(1)(d) of the District Municipalities Act. On 4. 2007 the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Authority, Virudhachalam Municipality regarding the disqualification of the second respondent as Chairman but the same has not been considered so far. The second respondent has gone to the extent of disbursing money and putting the municipality in loss hence the petition may be allowed, disqualifying the second respondent from allowing the post of Chairman of Virudhachalam Municipality.

2. In the counter filed by the first respondent the following are stated:-

2(a) Second respondent was elected as Councillor and Chairman of the Virudhachalam Municipality as a candidate from Pattali Makkal Katchi while the petitioner herein was elected as councillor from a political party Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam. Neither second respondents wife nor his father nor any other person in his family have acquired any subsisting contract with the municipality. The wife and father of second respondent submitted letter for termination from the approved contractors list in the municipality on 10. 2006 and they were accepted in the municipal council meeting held on 11. 2006. Both of them are not registered contractors in the municipality. The contracts were taken by them during the previous term of municipal council when second respondent was not a councillor or Chairman. On 02.02.2006 tenders were called for when he was not a councillor or Chairman of the municipality. On the date of assuming office by the second respondent, his wife and father were not in the live list of contractors and had not participated in any tender thereafter nor were they awarded any work.

2 (b) The cheques dated 112. 2006 and 2. 2007 were issued by the municipality to the wife and father of the second respondent for the works which had been completed by them, which works were awarded to them during previous term when the second respondent was not a Chairman nor councillor. The payment was delayed for want of funds. Subsequent to the election, neither his wife nor father nor any of his family members acquires any interest in the subsisting contract in the