Order.- This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is to revise the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram who declared that the petitioner, a member of the Mela Cheval Panchayat, has ceased to hold office by reason of his non-payment of arrears of profession tax. The petitioner was elected as a member of the panchayat at an election held on 28th October, 1958. He was an assessee to profession tax ; and for the half-year ending 30th September, 1959, tax was due from him. The Executive Officer made a demand on him for the tax by his notice dated 26th August, 1959, that being served on him on the same day. It is the case of the Executive Officer, who is the respondent to this Civil Revision Petition, that the petitioner did not pay the profession tax within three months from that date; but that he paid it only on 28th November, 1959. The respondent thereupon filed an application to the District Munsif of Ambasamudram under section 19 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 for finding out whether the petitioner had suffered disqualification and ceased to hold office by reason of his failure to pay the tax. The petition was contested, the member stating that he had in fact paid the tax within a period of three months from the date of issue of notice. In support of that contention he produced before Court an undated receipt purporting to have been issued by one of the employees of the Panchayat for having received the profession tax from him. That by itself could not prove the date of payment. But, there were other documents filed before the District Munsif which put the matter beyond all possible doubt and showed that the tax was paid two days after the expiry of the three months from the date of demand. The lower Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner defaulted to pay the profession tax within three months from 26th August, 1959, when he was given notice demanding payment of the same. On that conclusion the learned District Munsif declared the petitioner’s having ceased to hold office. The petitioner had his sympathisers from among the other members of the Panchayat. They understandably enough passed a resolution to the effect that the default of the petitioner, if any, should be condoned. On that conclusion the learned District Munsif declared the petitioner’s having ceased to hold office. The petitioner had his sympathisers from among the other members of the Panchayat. They understandably enough passed a resolution to the effect that the default of the petitioner, if any, should be condoned. Such a resolution will obviously be beyond the powers of the Panchayat as section 17(j) prescribes that if a member defaults to pay tax within the time specified in that provision he shall cease to hold office. The Panchayat will have no power to contravene the provision of the statute by passing a resolution that the tax could be paid after the period and the statutory disqualification avoided. The Executive Authority will not be bound to obey such an invalid resolution. In this Civil Revision Petition against the order of the learned District Munsif Mr. K. Venkataswami, in a very able argument, has contended that before a member of a Panchayat could be held to have ceased to hold office he should have been served with a notice expressly under section 17 (j) making a demand upon him for the money due ; this it is argued will be in addition to the due making of the demand. Learned Counsel contended that in this case the notice that was issued on 26th August, 1959, was nothing more than the usual demand made by the Panchayat under Rule 6 of the rules contained under Notification XIX (printed at page 271 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, M.L.J, edition) and that it cannot be construed as a valid notice under section 17. That provision runs thus: “If the profession tax due from any company or person is not paid, the Executive Authority of the Panchayat shall cause a notice to be served on such company or person to pay it within fifteen days of the date of such service.” It will be noticed that the obligation to pay the profession tax for the half-year ending 30th September, 1959 arises after 1st April, 1959, the first day of the half-year, for which tax was due. The Executive Authority issued as I said a notice on 26th August, 1959, in accordance with the provisions of rule 6 referred to above. The Executive Authority issued as I said a notice on 26th August, 1959, in accordance with the provisions of rule 6 referred to above. Section 17 which enumerates the disqualifications of members of a Panchayat, states inter alia, “Section 17.- Subject to the provisions of the section 19 a member shall cease to hold office as such if he- ******* (j) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity; to the Panchayat within three months after a bill or notice has been served upon him in pursuance of Rules made under this Act, or where in the case of any arrear such Rules do not require the service of any bill or notice, within three months after a notice requiring payment of the arrears (which notice it shall be the duty of the Executive Authority of the Panchayat to serve at the earliest possible date) has been duly served upon him by the Executive Authority;” Does the terms of section 17 require a further notice than the one contemplated by rule 6 referred to above ? Support for the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that such a notice will be necessary, is sought in the latter clause of the provision which enjoins on the Executive Authority to issue a special notice in regard to arrears of tax. I am however unable to accept this contention. Clause (j) gives the member a period of three months after “ a bill or notice” has been served upon him in pursuance of the Rules made under this Act. Undoubtedly a notice under rule 6 can be regarded either as a bill or a notice served under the Rules made under the Act. In terms therefore the section does not contemplate a second or further notice. It is very important that persons who come forward to function in or manage representative institutions should themselves be above board. One of the essential duties of a civic body, like a Panchayat is to levy and collect the tax so that the necessary amenities could be provided for the village. Persons who come forward and get elected to such bodies should not themselves be defaulters in respect of the amounts due to the Panchayat in which they hold office. One of the essential duties of a civic body, like a Panchayat is to levy and collect the tax so that the necessary amenities could be provided for the village. Persons who come forward and get elected to such bodies should not themselves be defaulters in respect of the amounts due to the Panchayat in which they hold office. This indeed is the policy of the Legislature in enacting the stringent provisions as to disqualification of a member on a default occurring, so that persons who come forward to manage these representative institutions should not be allowed to take advantage of their position and delay or default in the payment of tax due to the Panchayat. I am satisfied that on a true interpretation of the section no further notice except the one under rule 6 is contemplated so far as the current tax is concerned. But the procedure in regard to arrears is different, as in many cases there would be obligation upon the Executive Authority to issue a notice for arrears. That is because arrears must have already accrued, bill having been issued while tax was currently due and it will be pointless to go on issuing notices in respect of arrears. In such a case the Statute has provided that before a member is disqualified to hold office he should be given a notice. The second clause in the section, which requires a specific notice thereunder, deals therefore with a matter different from the first which is concerned with the current tax. For the latter i.e., the current tax, section 17 only prescribes the issue of a bill or notice, that is the one which is generally given by the Executive Authority to all the assessees. The use of the word ‘bill’ as furnishing the starting point for the calculation of time under that provision itself shows that no separate notice under that section is contemplated. I am therefore in agreement with the learned District Munsif that the petitioner had by reason of default in not paying tax due within three months of a demand on him forfeited his office. This Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. K.L.B. -------------- Petition dismissed.