Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 868 (MAD)

Velu v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2002-08-21

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2002
Judgment :- The petitioner is clamped with an order of detention dated 3.2.2002 passed by the Collector of Kancheepuram under the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Alleging that he is an elected member of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council, the meeting of which is convened on 22.8.2002, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the Council meeting to be held on 22.8.2002 at Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council with police escort from the Central Prison, Chennai and after the meeting he will be lodged at the Central prison, Chennai, on the ground that if the petitioner absents to attend the Council meeting to be held on 22.8.2002 at Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council, he ceases to be the member of the Union Council as per Section 38(j) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), which reads as follows: "Section: 38 – Disqualification of members: Subject to the provision of Section 41, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he - (a) to (i) .... (j) 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 Section 39, as the case may be, or if within the said period, less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from the 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 of members." 3. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner is detained under preventive detention by a competent authority, namely the first respondent herein, taking into consideration the whole stock of the issue that public order is adversely affected very now and then by the dangerous activities of the petitioner, which are in the opinion of the detention authority prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it may not be proper for this Court to permit the petitioner to attend the council meeting of Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council to be held on 22.8.2002 on an apprehension that if the petitioner absents to attend the Council meeting to be held on 22.8.2002 at Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council, he ceases to be the member of the Union Council as per Section 38(j) of the Act. 4. That apart, the very grievance of the petitioner that if the petitioner absents to attend the Council meeting to be held on 22.8.2002 at Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council, he ceases to be the member of the Union Council as per Section 38(j) of Act, is not sustainable in law, because a plain reading of Section 38(j) of the Act makes it clear that a member shall cease to hold office of the Council only if absents himself from the meeting of the Panchayat Union Council 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 Section 39, as the case may be, or if within the said period, less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from the three consecutive meetings held after the said date. 5. The word "himself" employed by the legislature in Section 38(j) of the Act explicitly confirms that the absence of a member to the meeting should be deliberate and due to his own lapse, but not due to an external situation, which cannot be attributed as deliberate absence of the member himself. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner is not absenting himself to the meeting of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council to be held on 22.8.2002, but he is absenting the meeting of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council as he is clamped with an order of detention of the first respondent. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner is not absenting himself to the meeting of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council to be held on 22.8.2002, but he is absenting the meeting of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council as he is clamped with an order of detention of the first respondent. Therefore, even if the petitioner absents to the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council meeting to be held on 22.8.2002, in my considered opinion, he shall not cease to be a member of the Council on that ground. The apprehension of the petitioner in this regard, therefore, is not only unsustainable but also unwarranted in law. 7. Hence, except to hold that Section 38(j) of the Act will not be applicable to disqualify the petitioner and to hold that he shall cease to be a member of the Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council for not attending the Council meeting, no further orders are required in the above writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP.No.49872 of 2002 is also dismissed.