Rajagopala Iyengar, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing W.P.No.660 of 1954. The appellant was the President of the Kivalur Panchayat Board, Nagapattinam Taluk and was elected to this office in March, 1952. Under section 21 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act X of 1950, he would hold this office for a term of three years. But this was subject to the contingency of his being removed from office under the provisions of section 47 of the said Act. The relevant portions of section 47 which enable this removal to be effected by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards run in. these terms:

“47(1): The Inspector may, by notification, and with effect from a date to be specified therein, remove any President or Vice-President who, in his opinion, wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act or any rules, by-laws, regulations or lawful orders-issued thereunder or abuses the powers vested in him.

(2) The Inspector may, by notification and with effect from a date to be specified therein,, remove any member who, in his opinion, is guilty of any misconduct in the discharge of his duties..

(3) The Inspector shall, when he proposes to take action under sub-section (1) or (2), give the President, or Vice-President or member concerned an opportunity for explanation, and the notification issued shall contain a statement of the reasons for the action taken.

(4) The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (1) or (2) and may, pending a decision on the question of such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification.”

In or about the middle of June, 1954, the appellant received a communication dated 1st June, 1954, from the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards setting out seven items of misconduct on the part of the appellant and calling upon him under section 47 (3) of the Act to show cause within a week from the date of the receipt of that notice why he should not be removed under section 47(1) from the office of the President.

The appellant sent a reply answering seriatim these charges and submitted his explanation on 8th June, 1954, within the time limited through the District Panchayat Officer, Nagapattinam and the Regional Inspector of Local Boards, Southern Range, Tiruchirapalli, as directed in the memo. dated 1st June, 1954. Subsequent to the receipt of this explanation, the District Panchayat Officer wrote to him on 27th June, 1954, that he would visit the Panchayat Office on 1st July, 1954, for verification of the records in his office in connection with the notice already issued to him by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards. The inspection took place but the appellant was not kept informed of anything that had been noted against him. Subsequently on 12th October, 1954, he received an order from the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards stating that he had been removed from the office of President with effect from 20th October, 1954 and a. notification was published in the official Gazette setting this out.

The appellant thereupon filed W.P. No. 660 of 1954 to quash the order of the Inspector removing him from his office. The main ground upon which a writ was prayed for was that section 47 (3) was violated and that contrary to the terms, of that section and the principles of natural justice he was not given any opportunity to know what exactly was the evidence against him which led to the order of removal.. The learned Judge, however, without going into this question dismissed the writ petition on the ground that under section 47(4) of the Act the Government had power to cancel the present notification and that the existence of this alternative remedy precluded the appellant from seeking the aid of the Court at that, stage. It is from this order of dismissal that the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

The first contention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document