The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disqualification of a Chairman to be determined by the competent District Judge as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

1. A challenge has been made to an order passed by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2341/2011/B2, dated 25.7.2011, wherein, the second respondent passed an order under Section 50(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act'), holding that the petitioner ceased to hold the office for the alleged reason that she has violated Section 30(1) of the Act, seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning as Chairman of the Arani Municipality, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) She is the elected Chairman of the Arani Municipality in the Elections held on 15.10.2006 and she is continuing in the said post till date. She belongs to a particular political party, namely DMK and she is the sympathizer of the same. In the meanwhile, the second respondent caused a notice dated 27.6.2011 at the instigation of a person, by name, A.P.Subash Chandra Bose who belonged to AIADMK. Based on the complaint of the said person, dated 26.6.2011, the second respondent passed an order on 27.6.2011 to the effect that she has to give an explanation for the allegation that she helped his son to obtain a shop in the Periyar Maligai Complex belonging to the Municipality and thereby, she has violated certain rules and regulations in the said allotment and she has been asked to give an explanation as to why she should not be proceeded upon under Section 50(1)(d) of the Act, for which, the petitioner sent a representation on 4.7.2011, stating that the allegations thereof were more than two years old and hence, should could state her objections only if copies of the relevant papers are served on her. She requested the respondents to furnish the copy of the complaint given by the said Subhash Chandra Bose and other connected papers to enable her to give explanation to the allegation. Further, on 16.7.2011, she sent another representation stating that the second respondent in respect of non-furnishing of the required document and the complaint.

(b) While so, to the petitioner's shock and surprise, she received the notice dated

27.6.2011 in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2341/2011/B2 of the second respondent stating that she has been removed from the post of Councillor of the Municipality and also the Chairman post under Section 50(1)(d) of the Act for the alleged reason that she has violated Section 30(1) of the Act.

(c) She is assailing the said order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as she was not given a chance to give her explanation in the absence of non-furnishing of the copy of the complaint and the connected papers and also that the respondents erred in passing the order without giving any opportunity to her. The impugned order is passed without looking into the fact that the shop was allotted to persons only unanimously and no voting or any discussion was made in the meeting. The second respondent is not at all entitled under the Act to remove the petitioner from the post of either the Municipal Councillor or the Chairman, and also that Section 50(1)(d) of the Act is not at all applicable with effect to provisions of Section 49. There is no pecuniary interest by the petitioner over the shops. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter-alia stating as follows:

(i) The Writ Petition is misconceived and is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner has submitted that as per Section 40-B of the Act, only the Regional Director of Municipal Administration is the competent person to initiate proceedings for the removal of the Chairman. The petitioner is not removed for the misconduct mentioned in Section 40-B. On the other hand, she became disqualified to hold the post of Chairman as per the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act, and since she has become disqualifie