Election as a member of Panchayat not questioned.

This petition is filed by a member of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council representing Kakkarai Panchayat to quash the order of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif), Pattukottai, holding that the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the aforesaid Panchayat Union Council is valid and that he is not disqualified to stand for the election. The petitioner and the respondent, by virtue of their being elected as Presidents of Kakkarai Panchayat and Mela Ulur Panchayat respectively, became members of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council. The Panchayat Union Council consists of 58 Panchayats. In the election held for the Chairmanship of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council, the respondent was declared as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union securing 34 votes as against 17 votes got by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union in an election petition, O.P. No. 56 of 1965 on the file of the Election Tribunal, Pattukottai, and on the election petition being dismissed, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The facts are not in dispute. The respondent was a member as well as Director of the Labour Contract Society, Mel Ulur, which was registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. Before the date of the election, the respondent resigned his post as Director of the Labour Contract Society. But on the date notified for filing of nomination papers, the respondent continued to be a member of the Labour Contract Society. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Labour Contract Society in which the respondent was a member, has two subsisting contracts with the Panchayat Union Council, one for construction of Veterinary Hospital and another for construction of certain roads.

The contention of V. V. Raghavan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondent was disqualified for election as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union under section 25 (2) (c) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, as on the date of his nomination he was interested in subsisting contracts with the Panchayat Union Council. Section 25 (2) (c) provides that a person will be disqualified for election as a member, if at the date of nomination or election he is interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, any Panchayat or any Panchayat Union Council, except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company. Construing the sub-section, it is seen that a person interested in a subsisting contract with Panchayat Union Council is disqualified. The subsection does not say that the interest must be by way of personal contract. The respondent is admittedly a member of the Labour Contract Society owning certain shares. The result of the subsisting contracts of the Labour Contract Society with the Panchayat Union Council would be financial gain or loss to the respondent, however small it may be. It cannot be denied that the respondent is interested in subsisting contracts with the Panchayat Union Council. The sub-section is worded in wide terms and it would include any kind of interest, direct or indirect. If the interest should be only direct or personal and not indirect interest, there is no reason for the sub-section making an exception in the case of shareholders of a company. Reading the sub-section as a whole and giving it its plain meaning, there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that a person taking any kind of interest direct or indirect, personal or through being a member of a society which has subsisting contract with any Panchayat or Panchayat Union-at the date of nomination or election will be disqualified. V. K. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, if so construed, it would adversely affect running of Co-operative Societies, and that the Legislature would not have intended such construction. He also submitted that in modern conditions many persons living in towns would be members of one or