TUKOL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a sitting Chairman of the Gangigatti Group panchayat has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the village panchayat dated 16-12-1968. In the meeting held on December 16, 1968, the proceedings of which are sought to be quashed, respondents 2 and 3 were elected as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that after the election to the village panchayat had taken place in the month of February, 1968, and the results of the election of 13 members were declared in March, 1968, six members of the village panchayat resigned from office on October 16, 1968. Under S. 26 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), the resignations became effective on the expiry of 15 clear days from the date of resignation. According to the petitioner, after six members had resigned there were no elections held to fill up those vacancies and that there existed after such resignation no legally constituted village panchayat. Further it is his case that the meeting held on December 10, 1968, was not a valid meeting as in fact there was no validly constituted village panchayat on that day and that it was not within the competence of the remaining seven members to elect a Chairman or Vice-Chairman in the meeting held on that day. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it has been stated that 13 members of the village panchayat were duly elected at the election held in February 1968 and that the duly elected members who constituted the panchayat commenced their term of office from 25-5-1968 in view of the notification issued by the State Government under S. 3 (a) of the mysore Local Authorities (Postponement of Election and Continuance of administrator) (Repealing) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called Repealing Act ). According to this respondent the steps have yet to be taken under S. 35 of the Act to fill up vacancies caused by resignation and that the resignation of the six members did not affect the validity of the election held on december 16, 1968. It is also mentioned that the present writ petition is malafide as it is intended to obstruct the smooth functioning of the committee. It is also mentioned that the present writ petition is malafide as it is intended to obstruct the smooth functioning of the committee. ( 4 ) THE counter affidavit also makes mention of WP. No. 1668 of 1968 filed by the present petitioner, which according to the respondent was an attempt to fortify himself in the office of the Chairman. ( 5 ) THE first point submitted by Mr. Raikar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner for our decision is whether there was a validly constituted panchayat after six members of the panchayat had resigned in october 1968. He referred to certain provisions of the Act in support of the contention that there cannot be a duly constituted panchayat if the number of the members goes below eleven at any tune. In support of this argument he has drawn our attention to Ss. 5, 8, 25 and 35 of the Act and also to S. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act. S. 5 provides for constitution of panchayats. The relevant sub-sections relied upon by him are reproduced below.-"constitution of Panchayats.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act. a Panchayat shall consist of such number of members, not being less than eleven or more than nineteen in number, as the Deputy commissioner may determine, all of whom shall be elected. (5) If for any reason the election results in the return of less than the required number of members, then, the Deputy Commissioner shall appoint such number of persons as will make up the required number, being persons who would have been qualified to be elected. (6) Where the Deputy Commissioner determines that the number of elected members of a Panchayat shall exceed eleven, failure to elect more than eleven members shall not affect the constitution of the panchayat. (7) The Deputy Commissioner shall publish in the prescribed manner the names of the members elected and appointed. " ( 6 ) THE scheme of sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 prescribes the minimum and the maximum number within which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to fix the strength of members to be elected. Under sub-sec. (5), if for any reason, the number of members elected at an election held for the purpose is less than the required strength, then it will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to appoint such number of persons as will make up the required number. Under sub-sec. (5), if for any reason, the number of members elected at an election held for the purpose is less than the required strength, then it will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to appoint such number of persons as will make up the required number. The significant sub-section, in our opinion, for determining the validity of the contention raised by the learned Advocate is sub-sec. (6 ). What it lays down is that if the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the strength of elected members to be more than eleven, failure to elect more than eleven members shall not affect the constitution of the panchayat; in other words where the strength of a panchayat is more than eleven, immediately after eleven members are duly and validly elected, they shall constitute a village panchayat as contemplated thereunder. The learned Advocate referred to Sec. 8 of the Act, which provides for the appointment of an administrative committee or administrator on the failure of a panchayat to elect the members for it. Nothing relevant to the point at issue turns upon the contents of this section. Sub- sec. (4) on which the learned Advocate has relied provides that the administrative committee or an administrator shall be deemed to duly constitute a panchayat for the purpose of this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions. The object of this sub-section is obviously to invest the administrative committee or the administrator, as the case may be with all the powers and functions which a village panchayat is empowered to discharge and exercise under the provisions of the Act, so that it or he could perform legally all the duties in exercise of those powers for the administration of the village panchayat. In the absence of that section doubt would have been raised as to what would have been the position of the administrative committee or administrator in relation to powers and functions of the village panchayat. The words "duly constituted" occurring in the sub-section are intended to clothe fictionally the administrative committee or the administrator with all the powers and functions conferred on village panchayat under the Act. S. 24 lays down, that the members of the village panchayat shall hold office for a term of four years; the proviso however empowers the State goverment to extend the term for a period not exceeding six years in the aggregate. S. 24 lays down, that the members of the village panchayat shall hold office for a term of four years; the proviso however empowers the State goverment to extend the term for a period not exceeding six years in the aggregate. The other important section that was read to us by the learned advocate is S. 25, which states that the term of office of the members elected at a general election or appointed under S. 5 shall commence on the date immediately after the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing members of the panchavat or on the date of publication of their names under sub- sec. (7) of S. 5, whichever is later. The provisions contained in this section lay down the normal rule for the commencement of the term of office of the elected members. It is undisputed that the names of the members duly elected for the village panchayat were published in the Mysore government Gazette some time in Mareh, 1968. ( 7 ) THE question however is, as regards the date on which the term of office of the outgoing members of the panchayat expired. The question assumes significance on account of the use of the words "whichever is later" at the end of S. 25 of the Act. In order to determine this question we have to refer to S. 3 clause (a) of the Repealing Act. That section lays down:"repeal of Mysore Act No. 24 of 1965 and savings.-The Mysore local Authorities (Postponement of Election and Continuance of administrators) Act 1965 (Mysore Act No. 24 of 1965) is hereby repealed. In order to determine this question we have to refer to S. 3 clause (a) of the Repealing Act. That section lays down:"repeal of Mysore Act No. 24 of 1965 and savings.-The Mysore local Authorities (Postponement of Election and Continuance of administrators) Act 1965 (Mysore Act No. 24 of 1965) is hereby repealed. Provided that notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, and notwithstanding anything in any enactment by or under which any local authority is constituted or established,- (a) the term of office of the councillors or members extended by s. 3 of the Act now repealed and of the Administrators appointed or continued under S. 4 or 5 of the said Act, shall expire on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in respect of each local authority concerned which shall not be a date later than one year from the date of commencement of this act, but the councillors or members or, as the case may be, the administrators shall continue in office until the first meeting of the local authority duly reconstituted under the relevant Act, at which a quorum is present. " ( 8 ) THE last body for the group panchayat in question was constituted sometime in 1960 and it continued to function under the provisions of Act no. 24 of 1965 owing to the postponement of elections. S. 3 (a) of the repealing Act empowers the State Government to issue notification in the official Gazette appointing a date in respect of each local authority as regards the expiry of the term of office of the councillors or members whose term of office had been extended or under Act No. 24 of 1965. In the present case the State Government issued a Notification on May 8, 1968, no. SO807 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of the proviso to S. 3 of the Repealing Act appointing 25-5-1968 as the date for the purpose of the Gangigatti Group Panchayat. It would therefore follow from this notification that the term of office of the members of the outgoing gangigatti Group Panchayat expired on 25-5-1968. But under the late part of Clause (a) the panchavat was required to continue in office until the first meeting of the local authority duly reconstituted under the relevant act. It would therefore follow from this notification that the term of office of the members of the outgoing gangigatti Group Panchayat expired on 25-5-1968. But under the late part of Clause (a) the panchavat was required to continue in office until the first meeting of the local authority duly reconstituted under the relevant act. What is more vital to mention in the context of the contention raised in this writ petition is that the first meeting of the local authority under this clause is a meeting "at which a quorum is present". ( 9 ) IN this context it would be necessary to consider an argument built upon by Mr. Raikar under S,30 (1) of the Act. That section states:"30. Election of Chairman on Establishment of Panchayat, etc.- (1) On the establishment of a Panchayat for the first time under this act, or on its reconstitution or establishment under S. 92 or on its recon-stitution on the expiry of the term of the members of a Panchayat, a meeting shall be called within four weeks from the date of commencement of the term of office of the members of the Panchayat under s. 25 by the prescribed officer who shall himself preside over the meeting, but shall have no right to vote, and the meeting shall then proceed to elect the Chairman. In the case of an equality of votes the result of election of the Chairman shall be decided by lot to be drawn by the officer presiding at the meeting in such manner as he may determine. " ( 10 ) THE contention raised by the learned Advocate is that the first meeting of the newly constituted panchayat was called on December 16, 1968, that its term of office commenced on that date and that the election of the chairman should have been held within four weeks from 16th December onwards. The substance of his submission is that the election of the chairman and the Vice-Chairman is premature and therefore in violation of S. 30 (1) of the Act. All that S. 30 lays down is, that a meeting of the panchayat shall be called within four weeks from the date of the commencement of the term of office of the members. It does not lay down that a second meeting would be necessary for the election of the Chairman. All that S. 30 lays down is, that a meeting of the panchayat shall be called within four weeks from the date of the commencement of the term of office of the members. It does not lay down that a second meeting would be necessary for the election of the Chairman. The wording of the section makes it absolutely clear that in the meeting called within four weeks from the date of commencement of office the Chairman shall be elected to fill the office. Emphasis was obviously on the words "from the date of the commencement of the term of office". In the usual course, these words would have the meaning given to them under S. 25 of the act, according to which the commencement of the term of the office shall be on the date immediately after the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing members or on the date of the publication of the names of the members whichever is later. This provision would be appplicable in all cases where the term of office of the outgoing members is not extended by any law. As we have already indicated the term of office of the outgoing members was extended under the Mysore Act 24 of 1965. We have already referred to S. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act. under which the State government is required to issue notification fixing a date on which the term of office of the councillors or members shall expire. The notification dated May 7, 1968, fixed the date as 25-5-1968. In law the term of office of the outgoing members expired on 25-5-1968. The date of the notice of publishing the names was earlier: therefore, if S. 25 is read in the context of the statutory notification dated Mav 8, 1968, it would follow that the term of the office of outgoing members expired on May 25, 1968 and the term of office of the newly elected members commenced on that date, as the date of the publication of their names is admittedly earlier. In this connection Mr. B. V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 drew our attention to the decision of this Court in basettappa v. K. C. Chenniah, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 313. In this connection Mr. B. V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 3 drew our attention to the decision of this Court in basettappa v. K. C. Chenniah, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 313. in which their Lordships had to decide the very question under S. 30 regarding the meeting to be called for the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and that too in the context of a notification issued under S. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act. This is how their Lordships expounded the legal position emerging from S. 25 read with S. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act and the relevant Notification. "although clause (a) of the proviso to S. 3 of the Repealing Act contains an additional provision that even after the expiry of the term of office of the sitting members, they continue in office until the first meeting of the reconstituted body, it is clear that the relevant date for the purpose of S. 30 (1) which refers to the date on which the term of office of the sitting members expires is the date specified by Government under the first part of clause (a) of the proviso to S. 3. "mr. Raikar, however, raised a further objection to our holding that the date of the commencement of the term of office of the newly elected members as 25-5-1968 on the ground that under s. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act, the outgoing members are entitled to continue in office. It is clear from the section already extracted above that the outgoing members legally lay down their office on the date fixed by the notification, but in order that there should not be a vacuum in the administration of the village panchayat, the concluding portion of clause (a) has taken care to provide for continuation of the outgoing members in office until the first meeting of the local authority. Their continuance under this clause is under a statutory right conferred by s. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act and not under a right flowing from any the sections of the Act. We do not therefore see that there is any justification in holding that the term of the office of the outgoing members had not expired even on December 16, 1968 when the meeting was held. We do not therefore see that there is any justification in holding that the term of the office of the outgoing members had not expired even on December 16, 1968 when the meeting was held. Adverting to the argument that the meeting of the village panchayat held on December 16, 1968, was not that of a duly constituted village panchayat, we have to point out that there is nothing in any of the provisions of this Act to require the full sanctioned strength of members to be present at all times in order that a validly constituted panchayat should be in existence, S. 35 of the Act, provides for filling up of vacancies. Subsection (1) requires a vacancy caused by disablement, death, resignation, disqualification, absence without leave of a member or removal of a chairman or Vice-Chairman to be filled by election to the office of a member, vice-Chairman or Chairman as the case may be. The first proviso empowers the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a person qualified to be elected under the Act to a vacancy which is not filled up within four weeks from the date on which notice of the vacancy has been given. The second proviso on which the learned Advocate for the petitioner laid some emphasis provides that if the vacancy of a member occurs within four months preceding the date on which the term of office of the members expires, the vacancy shall not be filled. This proviso is intended to safeguard against unnecessary expenditure over elections to fill up a vacancy lasting only for a period of four months. It was contended on the basis of these two provisions that the intention of the legislator in enacting this proviso was to maintain the continuity of elected members in office in its full strength so that a legally constituted panchayat ought to function under the Act. We are unable to read anv such intention of the legislature in these two provisos. They are simple in their tenor and their object is merely to provide for filling up of vacancies in the manner indicated therein. ( 11 ) THERE is another ground on which we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. They are simple in their tenor and their object is merely to provide for filling up of vacancies in the manner indicated therein. ( 11 ) THERE is another ground on which we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. If it was the intention of the legislature that the full strength of members of a village panchayat should be continuouslly functioning in office during the entire period of the term of the members, then nothing was easier than to have made such provision. Besides, S. 37 which prescribes the quorum and the procedure, does not contain any such condition for the valid existence of a panchayat. Sub-sec. (1) of this section lays down that the quorum for a meeting of the panchayat shall be one-half of the total number of members. If the quorum is not complete at a meeting the presiding authority shall adjourn the meeting to such time on the following day or some other future day as he may fix. The object of the quorum is to prescribe the number of members that shall be present at a meeting to transact business of the panchayat under the provisions of the Act. ( 12 ) IN this context we would like to mention S. 41 of the Act, which is quite conclusive on the point raised by Mr. Raikar. It states:"acts of Panchayat etc. , not to be invalidated.-No act of a panchayat or of any persons acting as a member or as a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, presiding member or Secretary, shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of some defect in the constitution or appointment of such Panchayat, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Presiding Member or secretary or member or on the ground that they or any of them were disqualified for such office or that formal notice of the intention to hold a meeting of a Panchayat was not duly given or by reason of such act having been done during the period of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Secretary or member of such Panchayat or for any other informality. " ( 13 ) THIS section is obviously intended to validate all acts duly done by a panchayat and to prevent the consequence of any invalidity attaching to any such act on account of some defect in the constitution of the panchayat or by reason of such act having been done during the period of any vacancy in the office of a member or Chairman etc. In substance the contention of the petitioner is that when six members of the panchayat tendered their resignation in October 1968, the election held in the absence of six members in December, 1968, would be invalid on the ground that there was a defect in the constitution. In our opinion there was neither any defect nor any illegality in the constitution of the village panchayat. The meeting called for election of Chairman or the Vice-Chairman had the required quorum prescribed under S. 37 of the Act. We may also incidentally observe that the meeting that is referred to under S. 3 (a) of the Repealing Act is a meeting at which a quorum is present. ( 14 ) CONSIDERED from all points of view, we do not see any illegality attaching to the election of respondents 2 and 3 to the office of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively. This writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. 00. --- *** --- .