No overt act is required for bringing home the disqualification.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

1. This Writ Appeal is against the order of Padmanabhan, J. who saw no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, who was a member and President of Agaram Village Panchayat and who sought for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, in O.P. No. 3 of 1976, which order he passed as a statutory functionary under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to quash the same.

2. The relevant facts are as follows:—The Divisional Development Officer, Chidambaram, who is the first respondent herein, caused a memo to be served on the appellant stations that under S. 28(1) and (2) of the Act, the appellant had become disqualified to be a member, and in consequence to be the President, of the Panchayat in question, since he had not paid the house tax and the vehicle tax for the years 1973-1974 and 1974-1975 with in the time prescribed for such payment. The appellant filed the original petition in question before the District Munsif, Cuddalore, who is the statutory judicial authority within the meaning of S. 28 (2) of the Act, to decide the question whether the memo had been validly issued or not and whether he was suffering under any disability or disqualification. The District Munsif concurred with the opinion expressed by the Divisional Development Officer, Chidambaram, and was of the view that the appellant did incur the disqualification. It is to quash this order of the statutory but judicial authority that the writ petition was filed.

3. Three contentions were raised by the appellant before the learned Judge, and they were repeated before us. At the outset, it is common ground now that the tax as claimed for the relative years in question was not paid in time. This being a question of fact, the learned Judge felt that it was not open to the appellant to canvass the correctness of such a finding of fact which was rendered on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. We are not called upon to disturb the said finding.

4. The main contention recanvassed before us is that the non-payment of tax within time, even if it is an irregularity, cannot inflict the appellant with an automatic disqualification and that it would be operative only after a notice in writing is issued to the defaulting member and after the subject is considered by the Panchayat or the Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be, at its next meeting after the issuance of the notice. This leads on to a discussion as to whether the disqualification contemplated in S. 28 (1) of the Act is an automatic one or whether it is subject to certain formalities, such as the one referred to by learned counsel for the appellant before us and whether the suffered disqualification should be postponed until after the above so-called prescriptions are proved to have been satisfied.

5. The disqualification Which is generated by the non-conformance of staturory duties sets itself attached to the defaulter co instant there is a proved failure of such conformance of the mandates of the statute. Anything which has to be done after the sufferance of the disqualification could only be understood as publicising such disqualification already suffered or as steps taken to implement the consequences resulting from the same. The defaulter cannot ignore the badge of infirmity which has been imprinted on him already. If he is alert the defaulter might take such steps as are necessary to efface that badge by resorting to statutory procedure prescribed by the very statute which brings about such a disqualification. In this context it it necessary for us to deal with S. 28 of the Act, in order to appreciate the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. S. 28 of the Act reads as follows—

“S. 28 (1). Whenever it is alleged that any person who has been elected as a member of a Panchayat or who becomes a member of a Panchayat Union Counc