Judgment :- Malimath, CJ. Leave is granted and the appeal is admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondents, the appeal was heard finally today. 2. We are concerned in this case with the problem that has arisen in respect of the fifth respondent, Shri P.I. Ittika, a member of Koovappady Panchayat. The sixth respondent, Shri P.P. Alphonse, is of opinion that the fifth respondent has incurred disqualification under S.20(m) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, on the ground that he has absented himself from meetings of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. As the executive authority did not take any action on that representation of the fifth respondent, he has approached the Director of Panchayats under S.49 of the Act. It is his case that the fifth respondent had suffered such disqualification on two earlier occasions and had the benefit of restoration by invoking sub-section (9) of S.21 of the Act and that he is not entitled to any further privilege of restoration. It is therefore his case that the fifth respondent should he restrained from participating in the meetings of the Panchayat. It is his case that it was the duty of the executive authority under sub-section (2) of S.21 to report about the fifth respondent ceasing to be a member and to give intimation to the disqualified member. As that has not been done, the Director of Panchayat was requested to issue appropriate directions. 3. In the meanwhile, the election of the President of the Panchayat was expected to be held on the 3rd of December, 1990. The sixth respondent being interested in contesting for the Presidency was keen on ensuring that the fifth respondent does not participate in the meeting to be convened for the purpose of electing the President, on the ground that he has ceased to be a member of the Panchayat. Without waiting for the decision of the Director of Panchayats, as the meeting was about to be held, the sixth respondent approached this court in O.P. No. 10777 of 1990 for appropriate directions. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the Director of Panchayats to dispose of the representation of the sixth respondent expeditiously and at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the Director of Panchayats to dispose of the representation of the sixth respondent expeditiously and at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pending decision of the issue regarding the status of the fifth respondent, a direction has been issued to adjourn the meeting scheduled to be held on the 3rd of December, 1990, to a date after the final decision on the representation of the sixth respondent, Ext. P4. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal. 4. Shri Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Director of Panchayats is not the authority to decide as to whether the fifth respondent has ceased to be a member on the ground that he has incurred disqualification prescribed under S.20(m) of the Act. He submits that a decision of an authority like the Director of Panchayats, who has no power to take a decision in this behalf, could not have the effect of determining the status of the fifth respondent as a member. It was pointed out that this power has been conferred on the Munsiff under S.22(4) of the Act. The question for consideration therefore is as to whether the learned single judge was right in proceeding on the basis that the Director of Panchayat has jurisdiction or power to decide as to whether the fifth respondent has ceased to be a member of the Panchayat, disentitling him from participating in the meeting to be convened for the purpose of electing the President. 5. S.20 of the Kerala Panchayats act enumerates several disqualifications of members. 5. S.20 of the Kerala Panchayats act enumerates several disqualifications of members. Clause (m)of S.20 is the provision under which the fifth respondent is alleged to have incurred the disqualification, which reads: "absents himself from the meetings of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of the commencement of his term of office, or of the last meeting which he attended, or of his restoration to office as member under sub-section (1) of S.21, as the case may be, or if within the said period, less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from three consecutive meetings held after the said date: Provided that no meeting from which a member absented himself shall be counted against him under this clause if (i) due notice of that meeting was not given to him; or (ii) the meeting was held after giving shorter notice than that prescribed for an ordinary meeting; or (iii) the meeting was Held on a requisition o[ members". Even if a person incurs disqualification under this provision, it was pointed out that there is provision for securing restoration of membership by invoking sub-section (2) of S, 21, which reads: "Where a person ceases to be a member under clause (m) of S.20, the executive authority shall at once intimate the fact in writing to such person and report the same to the Panchayat at its next meeting. If such person applies for restoration to the Panchayat on or before the date of its next meeting or within fifteen days of the receipt by him of such intimation, the Panchayat may at the meeting next after the receipt of such application restore him to his office of member: It is the case of the sixth respondent that the fifth respondent had incurred disqualification on two earlier Provided that a member shall not be so restored more than twice during his term of office". occasions under S.20(m) and that accepting the said disqualification he had applied for restoration on two occasions invoking sub-section (2) of S.21. It is his further case that his request was conceded twice and restoration was granted in his favour. It is therefore contended that in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.21, in respect of a third disqualification under S.20(m), there is no scope for restoration of the membership of the fifth respondent. It is his further case that his request was conceded twice and restoration was granted in his favour. It is therefore contended that in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.21, in respect of a third disqualification under S.20(m), there is no scope for restoration of the membership of the fifth respondent. It is in this background that it is maintained by the sixth respondent that the executive authority was bound to take action under subsection (2) of S.21 on the basis that the fifth respondent has ceased to be a member, he having lost the right of restoration. As that was not done, it is his case that he has invoked the power of the Director of Panchayats under S.49 of the Act. 6. But, it has to be pointed out that specific power has been conferred on the Munsiff in the matter of declaring as to whether a particular person has ceased to be a member on his incurring disqualification as mentioned in S.20(m). Sub-section (4) of S.22, which is relevant for the purpose may be extracted as follows:- "If at any time, on the application of any person whose name appears in the electoral roll and who is not otherwise disqualified or of the executive authority of the Panchayat under direction from the Panchayat or suo mote the Munsiff, after such inquiry as he considers necessary and after giving an opportunity to the member concerned to be heard, is satisfied that any member, elected under S.6 or S.12 or nominated under S.8, has incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in S.20 after his assumption of office as member, the Munsiff shall declare that such member shall cease to hold office and upon such declaration, the member concerned shall vacate his office. Such declaration shall be final. Pending such declaration, the member shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified". Thus, we find that there are two provisions, which govern disqualifications contemplated by clause (m) of S.20. Sub-section (2) of S.21 is one provision which requires the executive authority to intimate the person concerned as also the Panchayat about a particular member having incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20. It also enables the concerned member to seek restoration of his membership on his having incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20. Sub-section (2) of S.21 is one provision which requires the executive authority to intimate the person concerned as also the Panchayat about a particular member having incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20. It also enables the concerned member to seek restoration of his membership on his having incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20. The Panchayat has the discretion if requested by the particular person who has incurred disqualification to restore membership to him. That power can be exercised only on two occasions during the term of office of the member. At the same time, we find another provision viz., subsection (4) of S.22, which confers jurisdiction on the Munsiff to make a declaration that a particular member has incurred one of the disqualification mentioned in S.20. The consequence of the disqualification is that the particular person ceases to be a member, whereupon the member concerned shall vacate the office. Though the two provisions apparently seem to govern the same aspect, it is clear that they operate in two different clear-cut areas. Sub-section (2) of S.21 requires the executive authority to apply his mind to the question as to whether in his opinion the member has incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20. If he is of opinion that the particular member has incurred disqualification, he is required to give intimation to the member concerned and report the matter to the Panchayat at its next meeting. Once that is done, it is for the member concerned to accept the opinion of the executive authority that he has ceased to be a member or to reject the opinion of the executive authority. If he accepts the opinion of the executive authority that he has ceased to be a member, he is entitled to seek restoration of his membership, by making an appropriate application for that purpose to the Panchayat. If such an application is made, the Panchayat has the discretion to restore. But such restoration of disqualification can be made only on two occasions under sub-section (2) of S.21. The Panchayat has no jurisdiction or power to grant restoration if the disqualification mentioned in clause (m) of S.20 is incurred for a third occasion. If such an application is made, the Panchayat has the discretion to restore. But such restoration of disqualification can be made only on two occasions under sub-section (2) of S.21. The Panchayat has no jurisdiction or power to grant restoration if the disqualification mentioned in clause (m) of S.20 is incurred for a third occasion. In cases where the member concerned takes the stand that he has not incurred the disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and has therefore not ceased to be a member, he is not required to request the Panchayat to restore his membership. If such person takes the stand that he has not incurred the disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and has therefore not ceased to be a member, this controversy cannot be resolved by the executive authority under sub-section (2) of S.21. The question of applying for restoration arises only when the member accepts the opinion of the executive authority that he has incurred the disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and has ceased to be a member. If the member concerned does not accept the view of the executive authority in this behalf the Panchayat cannot proceed on the basis of the opinion of the executive authority that he has ceased to be a member. The Panchayat can act in such circumstances only on the declaration to be made by the Munsiff in accordance with sub-section (4) of S.22. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the member is alleged to have incurred the disqualification and the said member does not accept that position, he cannot be assumed to have incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and ceased to be a member of the Panchayat. In such a situation, the jurisdiction of the Munsiff has to be invoked under sub-section (4) of S.22 for the purpose of making a declaration that the person concerned has incurred the disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and has ceased to be a member. That is the clear effect of the aforesaid two statutory provisions. Sub-section (4) of S.22 makes it clear that pending such declaration, the member shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified. That is the clear effect of the aforesaid two statutory provisions. Sub-section (4) of S.22 makes it clear that pending such declaration, the member shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified. This makes it clear that even if the executive authority is of opinion that the member has incurred disqualification under clause (m) of S.20 and has ceased to be a member, if the concerned member does not accept that point of view, the Panchayat cannot act on the opinion of the executive authority and prevent the member concerned from functioning as a member of the Panchayat. He can be prevented as a member of the Panchayat only on a declaration being made by the Munsiff under sub-section (4) of S.22. As exclusive jurisdiction has, thus, been conferred on the Munsiff for deciding as to whether a person has incurred disqualification under S.20 and has therefore ceased to be a member, neither the executive authority under sub-section (2) of S.21, nor the Director of Panchayats under S.49 of the Act can take any decision in this behalf. That being the position, it is not possible to uphold that the direction of the learned single judge to the Director of Panchayats, to whom the sixth respondent has approached, to take a decision on the question as to whether the fifth respondent has incurred disqualification and has ceased to be a member. Consequently, it follows that there is no justification in postponing the election of the President, as it is obvious that the fifth respondent has to be regarded as having the status of a member entitled to take part in the deliberations of the Panchayat as a member until an appropriate declaration is made against him by the concerned Munsiff under sub-section (4) of S.22. We are informed that one of the members of the Panchayat has invoked the said provision and the matter is pending before the Munsiff, Perumbavoor in E.O.P. No.1 of 1990. As the dispute pertains to the disqualification of a member of the Panchayat, it is obvious that the said Munsiff is required to dispose of the petition expeditiously. We are informed that one of the members of the Panchayat has invoked the said provision and the matter is pending before the Munsiff, Perumbavoor in E.O.P. No.1 of 1990. As the dispute pertains to the disqualification of a member of the Panchayat, it is obvious that the said Munsiff is required to dispose of the petition expeditiously. Though we have directed that the concerned Munsiff shall dispose of the matter expeditiously, that does not mean that the Panchayat should not proceed to hold the meeting for electing the President of the Panchayat, as we have already held that the fifth respondent shall continue to have the rights of a member of the Panchayat, until otherwise declared by the Munsiff under sub-section (4) of S.22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. In the view which we have taken it is 'obvious that the Director of Panchayats shall not pass any order on the representation of the sixth respondent invoking S.49 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the first respondent, Director of Panchayats.