ORDER This petition is to quash the order of the District Munsif, Pattukottai, which he made under section 28 of Madras Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) that the petitioner had sustained a disqualification under section 26(j) of the Act. He found that the petitioner was absent from the meetings of the Panchayat held on 26th April, 31st May and 29th June, 1963. The last meeting prior to those dates as on 30th March, 1963. The petitioner attended the meeting held on 9th July, 1963. The Munsif overruling the petitioner's stand, held that he had due notice of each of the meetings in April to May, 1963. He also held that there was no substance in the contention of the petitioner that on account of the fact he was allowed to sit at the meeting on 9th July, 1963, and subsequent meetings, and the agenda along with the notices for each of the meetings had been circulated to him, the Panchayat had waived the disqualification. Lastly, it would appear to have been contended before the Munsif that inasmuch as the Executive Officer had failed to bring the disqualification to the notice of the Panchayat within the time prescribed by section 27, the Panchayat could not raise the question of disqualification. This contention again was not accepted by the Munsif. The above grounds for the petitioner are reiterated in this Court. So far as the last ground is concerned, it is covered by Kuppuswami v. Council of Corporation (1964) 2 MLJ. 280: I.L.R. (1964) 1 Mad. 14. This Court held: “The section no doubt casts a duty on the Commissioner to report about the sustaining of the disqualification by the absentee councillor. But that is merely to remind the Council of its power; non-submission of his report cannot detract or enlarge the powers of the Council… It has been contended on behalf of the first respondent that before the Council could get jurisdiction to exercise the power conferred upon it by sub- section (4) of the section 53, the Commissioner's report will be necessary, and the Council would be justified in exercising its power after such a report is received. We are unable to agree with the contention. The power for restoration is conferred on the council. It cannot be read as being conditional or as coming into existence on the Commissioner submitting a report. We are unable to agree with the contention. The power for restoration is conferred on the council. It cannot be read as being conditional or as coming into existence on the Commissioner submitting a report. The report is intended merely as information to the Council”. Though that case was decided under the Madras City Municipal Act, the principles of the Judgment is applicable to the facts of this case as well. So far as the second ground as to want of notice for the meetings held in April, May and June is concerned, the finding of the Munsif is a factual one and this Court will not correct it in certiorari. The first contention relating to waiver has also to be rejected. What precisely is meant by waiver in the context is not clear. If by waiver is meant that the Panchayat condoned the disqualification sustained by the petitioner, there is no provision giving any such power to the Panchayat. Section 27(2) contemplates restoration by the Panchayat on the application of the member concerned who has sustained the disqualification. It is true the application need not necessarily be oral. But there should be an application to the Panchayat for restoration and only on such an application the Panchayat can exercise its power of restoration subject to the restrictions contained in section 27(2). The disqualification is sustained automatically and unless the member concerned is restored, he ceases to be a member. I am therefore unable to accept this ground based on waiver. In my view the Munsif was right in rejecting this ground. The petition is dismissed. No costs. K.L.B.-----Petition dismissed.