Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed against the order of the 5th respondent, namely, the Commissioner, Pattukottai Municipality, dated 312. 2007, in which, the various resolutions of the Municipality are stated to have been passed and also an order of the 5th Respondent dated 312. 2007, by which, the first petitioner was suspended in the meeting held on 312. 2007 and for a direction against the respondents 1 to 4 to invoke Section 38 and 41 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called "tile Act"). 2. The petitioners who are 17 in number, are elected councillors of Pattukottai Municipality, which has 33 wards in total and 33 councilors were elected and assumed office on 210. 2006. In the meeting of the councillors held on 210. 2006, the 6th respondent Mrs. Priya Elango was elected as its Chairperson, apart from the other office bearers. When one of the councillors Mr. Viswanathan died in August 2007, a by-election was held for ward No.30 and the 3rd petitioner was elected as a councillor. 3. According to the petitioners, the 6th respondent elected as the Chairperson, has been in the habit of suspending the councillors, thereby, preventing the opposing councillors from passing resolution. On 29. 2007 there was an agenda by the Municipality for 68 items. When the 6th respondent hurriedly proceeded to pass the resolutions which was objected, she has suspended four councillors, who have opposed and in spite of the fact that there were no majority, the 6th respondent/the Chairperson has independently decided the resolution. The said four councillors are the petitioners 4, 8, 9 and 12 herein. As against the said decision, the 7th petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.8514 of 2007 and the same is pending. 4. According to the petitioners, in the next meeting which was conducted on 310. 2007, the petitioners have opposed various items in the agenda in respect of ordinary meeting as well as urgent meeting and out of 31 members present, majority of them have opposed. Since the resolution could not be passed, the meeting was postponed. About the said conduct of the 6th respondent, the petitioners have made representations to the higher officials. In spite of it, no action was taken. Since the resolution could not be passed, the meeting was postponed. About the said conduct of the 6th respondent, the petitioners have made representations to the higher officials. In spite of it, no action was taken. The meeting was conveyed once again on 30.11.2007, wherein, 31 resolutions were brought and some of the items in the ordinary agenda as well as extraordinary agenda were opposed by the petitioners. Even before the said meeting, anticipating that the 6th respondent as followed the same tactics earlier may suspend, the petitioners have given representation to 5th and 6th respondent is likely to suspend some of the councillors, the petitioners have given representation to the 4th respondent/the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Thanjavur stating that the meeting of municipal council should be video-graphed. However, no action was taken, since the 6th respondent belongs to the ruling party. 5. The meeting was decided to be convened again on 312. 2007 and the subject matters, which were adjourned, were also brought in the agenda of ordinary meeting. It is the case of the petitioners that the 6th respondent has proposed the Resolution No.504 that the first petitioner should be suspended. One of the councillors R. Veeraiyan, who has moved the said resolution, has not mentioned any misconduct on the part of the first petitioner. As per the Schedule III of "the Act" any agenda can be brought only by 1/3rd members of the council and against the said provision the said R. Veeraiyan has brought the resolution to suspend the first petitioner. 6. According to the petitioners, out of 33 members of the council, 17 members, who are the petitioners, have opposed the resolutions including suspension. Since the same is the majority, to reduce the number from 17 to 16, the resolution to suspend the first petitioner was sought to be moved. The case of the petitioners is that by suspending the first petitioner, the number of members opposing the resolution sought to be moved by the 6th respondent including the removal of the first petitioner will come to 16 and the total number of members supporting the resolution without including 6th respondent/the Chairperson will be 15. The 6th respondent who is the Chairperson by virtue of the councilor by voting in favour of the resolution will make the number as. The 6th respondent who is the Chairperson by virtue of the councilor by voting in favour of the resolution will make the number as. 16 and in as much the members equally divided, namely, 16 members supported the resolution and 16 members opposing the resolution after eliminating the first petitioner by suspending him, the 6th respondent being the Chairperson by putting the casting vote would decide in favour of the resolution, which according to the petitioners is illegal and designed to create a farce majority which is not really in existence and the same is against the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules made there-under including the Schedule. 7. The case of the petitioners is that on 312. 2007 in the meeting, after passing the order of suspension, all the resolutions were carried in the above said manner. Similarly, the claim of the petitioners to have video-graph of the proceedings was also rejected and therefore, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition on various legal grounds including that the orders passed at the instance of 6th respondent are illegal, that the resolutions are against Rule 5 of Schedule III of the Act which requires the majority of the members present and voting and out of 33 members 17 members have opposed the resolution, that the suspension of one of the councillors, namely, the first petitioner is mala fide only to create a fictitious majority for passing the resolution, that even assuming that the first petitioner being the councilor was suspended there are remaining 32 members and the 6th respondent even though elected as a councillor from ward No.14, she having been elected as a Chairman, cannot have any voting power and therefore, out of the remaining 31 members, 16 petitioners other than the first petitioner have opposed the resolution and only 15 members have supported and therefore, the resolution cannot said to be valid, that the respondents 1 to 4 being the statutory authorities ought to have considered the various representations made by the petitioners about the illegal activities of the 6th respondent and it is a monstrous circumstance prevailing in the 5th respondent Municipality and therefore, action under Section 38 and 41 of the Act ought to have been taken, that the various resolutions which are impugned are illegal and they are against the revenue interest of the Municipality. One among the reason is relating to the production of solvency certificate for a person to participate in the public contract which has been dispensed with. Instead of that caution deposit in money was introduced which may result in a person without adequate financial standing to participate in the public contracts, that by virtue of the previous conduct of the 6th respondent, the petitioners have already apprehended that the same tactics would be followed by the 6th respondent and the Complaint against respondents 1 to 4 was not considered at all. 8. The Deputy Secretary to Government has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4. It is their case that the Resolution No.504 suspending the first petitioner Kovi Ravi for the meeting on 312. 2007 is in accordance with Section 28(2) of the Act. The said Act contains an in-built mechanism to set right the resolution if the same is not found correct. Therefore, there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the said provisions of the Act by approaching the District Collector. It is also specifically stated in paragraph No. 5 in the counter affidavit that the Government was actively considering the resolution and due to the reason that, an interim order has been passed, no further decision could be taken. 9. It is further stated that as per the Rules framed in accordance with Section 25 of the Act, Rule 5 of the Rules regarding proceedings of the council under Schedule III provides power to Chairperson to cast second vote or casting vote when there was a tie. Therefore, according to the said respondents, the 6th respondent being the Chairperson apart from having a deliberate vote as a councillor, she is also having a casting vote to decide any issue when there is an equal division by way of tie. As far as the power of the Chairman to suspend any member, Section 28(2) of the Act enables the same on the spot based on the conduct of any of the members and in as much as the first petitioner has continuously attempted to stall the proceedings, the 6th respondent being the Chairperson based on her prerogative right has taken a decision on the spot which cannot be interfered with. It is also stated that the Petition itself has been filed with a mala fide intention of preventing the transactions of the Municipality and stalling the democratic process. 10. The 5th respondent, the Commissioner of Municipality has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated by the 5th respondent that on 312. 2007, 33 members including the 6th respondent/the Chairperson of the Municipality were present in the council meeting. At the beginning of the council meeting itself, the first petitioner has shouted and caused trouble with a bad intention to stall the entire business transactions of the Municipality for political enmity with the 6th respondent. One R. Veeraiyan, a council member elected from ward No.31 raised a point of order seeking the suspension of the first petitioner from the council meeting in order to conduct the council meeting smoothly. The resolution was moved by the 6th respondent Chairperson and on decision of the majority, the first petitioner was suspended. That was Resolution No. 504 and the suspension is by way of passing of resolution which cannot be assailed. 11. It is also stated by the 5th respondent that in the meeting on 312. 2007 after the suspension of the first petitioner, 32 members were present and 88 subjects were brought for discussion. Out of 32 members, 16 members opposed the passing of the resolution with respect to the 88 subjects and the remaining 16 members including the 6th respondent/the Chairperson being an elected member of the 14th ward, have supported the resolution. As there was equal votes opposing and supporting the resolutions relating to the 88 subjects, the 6th respondent/the Chairperson exercised her legal power by putting the casting vote as per Rule 5 of Schedule III of the Rules framed under the "Act" supporting the resolutions. By virtue of the same, the resolutions came to be passed. 12. It is also stated by the 5th respondent that the term casting vote mentioned in Rule 5 of Schedule III of the Rules framed under the "Act" was explained by way of clarification even much earlier in G.O. No.329 L.A. dated 21.01.1939 enabling the Chairman being a member of the council to vote like any other councillor and in case of equal tie to cast second vote. As far as the suspension of the first petitioner, the resolution has been validly passed in Resolution No. 504 due to the reason that he caused trouble in the council meeting and attempted to prevent and to stall the council meeting and that power lies with the Chairman as per Section 28(2) of the "Act". 13. It is also stated by the 5th respondent that even though under Section 28(2) of the "Act" the word "suspension" has not been used, Rules framed by the Government according to the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rule, 2000, specifically explains that the power of the Chairman includes the power to suspend a member and therefore, the suspension of the first petitioner is in accordance with law. It is the further case of the 5th respondent that under Section 36 of the "Act", the Government is empowered to suspend or cancel the resolutions which are not legally passed. It is always open to the petitioners to make such request to the Government and without making such request, the Writ Petition has been filed which has to be dismissed as premature. 14. The 6th respondent/the Chairperson in her counter affidavit while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent regarding the legal submissions including the powers of the Government under Section 36 of the "Act" and the powers of the Chairman under Section 28(2) of the "Act" to take any action against the erring member apart from her power as a Chairman to put the casting vote as per Rule 5 of Schedule III, would further submit that to invoke the powers of the Government under Section 38 and under Section 41 of the "Act" there should be conclusive evidence that the Municipality has become incompetent to perform the duties or failed to perform the duties imposed under law and according to her, there is no extraordinary circumstance in this case for invoking Section 36 and 41 of the "Act". In respect of the request for video-graph of the meeting, it is the case of the 6th respondent that the petitioners specifically wanted the video-graph to be taken only by Jaya T.V. which was objected to by the other members. It is also her case that the petitioners have not challenged the suspension of the first petitioner. In respect of the request for video-graph of the meeting, it is the case of the 6th respondent that the petitioners specifically wanted the video-graph to be taken only by Jaya T.V. which was objected to by the other members. It is also her case that the petitioners have not challenged the suspension of the first petitioner. According to the 6th respondent the Writ Petition is an abuse of process of law. 15. The petitioners in the reply affidavit have stated that the powers of the Government under Section 36 cannot be treated as an Appeal or an alternative remedy under the Act and the same is only inherent power of the Government. It is further stated by the petitioners that in respect of the Resolution No. 504, there was no agenda for suspending the first petitioner at all and therefore, there is no resolution, as stated by the 5th respondent the Commissioner that a resolution was passed by majority of the members of the council present by lifting of their hands. 16. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the factual assertions made in the original affidavit and the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners has raised an objection about the casting vote made by the 6th respondent the Chairperson of the council by making analogy to the Speaker of the Parliament and the Legislative Assembly as per Article 100 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the Speaker has no right of deliberate voting and therefore, according to him, the Chairman of the Municipality also cannot have a voting power when once a councillor has been elected as a Chairman. It is his further submission that the Chairperson by her conduct cannot create a tie, by suspending one of the persons for the purpose of putting a second casting vote to decide majority. As far as the contents in the counter affidavit that the issue is under consideration of the Government under Section 36 of the "Act" his contention is that it is not an alternative remedy and it is only an inherent power to Government. 17. He would also submit that the G.O. No.329 LA dated 21.01.1939 relied upon by the respondents cannot be made applicable now. 17. He would also submit that the G.O. No.329 LA dated 21.01.1939 relied upon by the respondents cannot be made applicable now. Therefore, his contention is that on the past occasions as stated in the affidavit, the 6th respondent has been with a mala fide intention suspending various members of the council and based on that Complaints have been made to the authorities and in fact the said presumption has come true on 312. 2007 when the 6th respondent has wantedly suspended the first petitioner with an intention of creating a tie which was only a fiction. He would also submit that under the "Act" especially regarding Schedule III, the procedure as per conducting the meeting has to be followed and in the absence of such proceedings, the impugned resolutions are bound to be set aside. 18. On the other hand, Mr. A. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would submit that as per Rule 5 of Schedule III the power of the Chairman in putting casting vote is specifically stated as a second vote and it does not require any further clarification at all. According to him, the word second vote means that the Chairman is having another deliberate vote also. He also further submits that the rule framed is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution especially under Article 243 and as long as the rule remains to be valid it has a statutory sanction and the 6th respondent who has acted as per the rule cannot be found fault with. It is his submission that as far as a suspension of a member in the meeting of the council, such a situation arises only during the course of the meeting and it does not require any prior notice to suspend a member. Inasmuch as, the action has to be taken on the spot, under Section 28(2) of the "Act" the Chairman has got inherent power to remove unruly members. He would submit that Section 36 itself makes an inbuilt mechanism to deal with the extraordinary circumstance. Inasmuch as, the action has to be taken on the spot, under Section 28(2) of the "Act" the Chairman has got inherent power to remove unruly members. He would submit that Section 36 itself makes an inbuilt mechanism to deal with the extraordinary circumstance. It is his submission that in the meeting of the council, due to the conduct of an individual if he was suspended for a day, the same cannot be within the preview of the judicial review and therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned resolution cannot be challenged and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. The case of the petitioner as it is seen in the pleadings and records is that the 5th respondent/Municipality consist of 33 councillors which includes the petitioners who are 17 in number and the 6th respondent along with the other 15 elected councillors. It is also not in dispute that the 6th respondent having been elected as councillors from Ward No.14 and by virtue of being the councillor, she was elected as a Chairperson from among the total number of councillors of the Municipality. It is also not in dispute that as on date under the "Act", the Chairman of the Municipality is not elected as a Chairman from the voters but elected from among the elected councillors of the Municipality. 20. Even though it is stated that the 6th respondent on earlier occasion has suspended 4 councillors, admittedly, as it is found in the affidavit of the petitioners, one of the petitioners has challenged the said suspension on 28.09.2007 by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.8514 of 2007 which is pending and therefore, such suspension need not be taken into consideration for disposing of this Writ Petition. 21. It is seen that the meeting of the council was convened on 310. 2007 and various agendas were transacted regarding ordinary meeting and extraordinary meeting about which the petitioners have objected in respect of some of the resolutions and made representation to the authorities. The subsequent meeting of the council was convened on 30.11.2007 with various agendas including 11 items of adjourned agenda of 30.10.2007 meeting. The petitioners have made representation on 30.11.2007 objecting to some of the agendas and the resolutions were made except regarding some of the agendas which were adjourned. The 6th respondent has called for meeting on 312. The subsequent meeting of the council was convened on 30.11.2007 with various agendas including 11 items of adjourned agenda of 30.10.2007 meeting. The petitioners have made representation on 30.11.2007 objecting to some of the agendas and the resolutions were made except regarding some of the agendas which were adjourned. The 6th respondent has called for meeting on 312. 2007 which is the dispute in this Writ Petition. 22. It is seen in the proceedings of the Municipality filed by the petitioners that on the starting of the said meeting Resolution No.504 was passed suspending the first petitioner for the said meeting for the reason that he has caused disturbance to the meeting and that resolution is stated to have been passed at the instance of one R. Veerian who is also one of the councillors. In this resolution which is assailed by the petitioners for the purpose of imputing motive on the 6th respondent stating that inasmuch as the members are divided equally on various resolutions, by suspending the first petitioner who was one among the members opposing the resolution, the 6th respondent being the Chairperson apart from putting her vote as a councillor, created an equal tie and thereafter, putting a casting vote deciding in favour of the resolution and the same was carried out and therefore, according to the petitioners the entire passing of resolution including the suspension of the first petitioner is illegal. Therefore, at the outset it requires to consider as to whether the suspension of the first petitioner for the meeting namely, on 312. 2007 is in accordance with law or not. In this regard, Section 28 of the "Act" which confers certain powers on the Chairman and Vice Chairman is relevant which "is extracted below: "28. Presidency of council—(1) Every meeting of the council shall be presided over by the Chairman; in his absence by the Vice-Chairman; and in the absence of the both Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the councillors and (a) in the case of town panchayats, the referred to in clause (b) and (1) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3-C and, (b) in the case of municipalities, the persons referred to in clause (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of Section 7, shall elect one from among the councillors to preside for the occasion. 2) The Chairman shall preserve order and shall decide all points of order arising at or in connection with meetings. There shall be no discussion on any point of order shall, save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be final. 3) A Vice-Chairman or councillor presiding for the occasion shall, for that meeting, and during the period that he presides over it, have all the powers of Chairman." 23. Under Section 28(2), the Chairman who preside over the meeting of the council has to preserve order and it is his prerogative to decide all points of order arising at or in connection with meetings. The said sub-section also makes it clear that such decision become final as correctly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The decisions regarding the removal of a member from the meeting or suspending a member for the meeting or for any period are made only to preserve order and such decisions are taken in the meeting therefore, there is no question of giving any prior notice. Such prior notice can be possible only in cases where for any conduct of a member either he is sought to be removed or suspended in a subsequent meeting and not removal of a member on the day of the meeting by the Chairman by exercising his prerogative power to preserve order. Power of the said Chairman can be exercised either by the Chairman himself or by the council and that decisions are taken instantaneously at the time when the meeting was convened depending upon the conduct of the members. On the facts of the present case it is seen that one of the members R. Veerian has moved the resolution and the decision has been taken. In such circumstances where the Chairman exercises his prerogative power on the spot of the meeting based on the conduct of the parties, it is not possible for this Court to interfere to hold that such decision is either valid or not. The prerogative powers are exercised not only in the best interest of the democratic principles but also to preserve decency, decorum and order. 24. It is also relevant at this stage to point out one of the orders of the State Government passed as per Section 28(2) of the Act. That was G.O. 3464 LA dated 9. The prerogative powers are exercised not only in the best interest of the democratic principles but also to preserve decency, decorum and order. 24. It is also relevant at this stage to point out one of the orders of the State Government passed as per Section 28(2) of the Act. That was G.O. 3464 LA dated 9. 1938, wherein it is clearly stated that even though normally the Chairman should use his discretion of resorting to remove a member from the meeting on the basis that he is guilty of gross disorderly conduct sparingly, such power is available and when it is used even reasonable force can be used to send away the offending member and even a Police can be called for the said purpose. The said G.O. is as follows: "The Chairman should use his discretion and tact to avoid such an unpleasant situation but where circumstances leave no other remedy open, the use of reasonable force to effect the offending member will be justified. The offending member should be ejected either by Officers of the Municipal Council or by a Police Officer who may be summoned for the purpose." 25. The next point that is raised in this case is about the validity of the Chairman putting a casting vote in cases of equal tie. Factually, as I have stated above there are 33 members including the 6th respondent subsequently elected as Chairman out of whom the fist petitioner was suspended for the meeting held on 312. 2007 leaving total number of members as 32. The resolutions moved on the said date have been opposed by the petitioners 2 to 17 who are 16 in number and supported by 15 councillors. In addition, the 6th respondent being the Chairperson having been elected so by virtue, of her election as councillor has also voted for the resolution. With the result each side was equally divided namely, 16:16 and it is in such circumstances, the 6th respondent has put her second vote as casting vote which had the effect of deciding the resolutions in its favour. 26. The contention of Mr.Veera Kathiravan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the 6th respondent when once is elected as the Chairperson, she loses her voting right as a councillor. 26. The contention of Mr.Veera Kathiravan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the 6th respondent when once is elected as the Chairperson, she loses her voting right as a councillor. To support the said view, he has relied upon Article 100 of the Constitution of India which is as follows: "100.Voting in Houses, power of Houses to act notwithstanding vacancies and quorum. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, all questions at any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the Houses shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other than the Speaker or person acting as Chairman or Speaker. The Chairman or speaker, or person acting as such, shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equal of votes. (2) Either House of Parliament shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof, and any proceedings in Parliament shall be valid notwithstanding that it is discovered subsequently that some person who was not entitled so to do sat or voted otherwise took part in the proceedings. (3) Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament shall be one tenth of the total number of members of the House. (4) If at any time during a meeting of a House there is no quorum, it shall be the duty of the Chairman or Speaker, or person acting as such, either to adjourn the House or to suspend the meeting until there is a quorum.” 27. The contention is that the Chairperson or a Speaker in Rajya Sabha and Parliament respectively or person acting in such capacity ceases to have any voting power in the first instance and he or she can exercise only when the house divides equally by way of a casting vote. Therefore, according to him drawing analogy to the District Municipalities Act, when once a person is elected as a Chairman, he or she loses a right to exercise voting power. 28. I am afraid that this analogy has any legal basis. I do not think that either the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of Lok Sabha can be compared to the Chairman of the Municipality for more than one reason. 28. I am afraid that this analogy has any legal basis. I do not think that either the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of Lok Sabha can be compared to the Chairman of the Municipality for more than one reason. Parliament or Rajya Sabha are involved in the law making process in the country which is not, as far as the Municipalities are concerned. In fact, while the concept of Gramaraj was incorporated for the first time in the Constitution of India by 74th amendment of the Constitution with effect from 01.06.1993, separate parts have been incorporated as "the Panchayats" and "the Municipalities" in Part IX and Part IX-A giving constitutional status to the Panchayats and Municipalities by incorporating the clauses regarding the constitution and composition, duration of Municipalities, reservation of seats, qualification of memberships, power and responsibilities of Municipalities and election to the Municipalities, etc. The power of conducting election to Panchayats and Municipalities have been entrusted to the State Election Commission to be appointed by the Governor as it is enshrined under Article 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India. 29. In fact in the Rules made in accordance with Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, called "Rules regarding Proceedings of the Council" which are incorporated in the Schedule III of the Act, there is a specific rule regarding the decision of the council and voting by the presiding member. The said Rule 5 is as follows: 5. All questions which may come before the council at any meeting shall be decided by a majority of the member present and voting at the meeting and, in every case of equality of votes the presiding member shall have and exercise a second or casting vote. 30. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners admits the existence of such rule which is binding, he would construe the rule to mean that the second or casting vote of the presiding member is only when there is a tie between two groups on a resolution in which the presiding member has not voted at the first instance. I am afraid that such a construction is possible as per the terms of Rule 5 of Schedule III. I am afraid that such a construction is possible as per the terms of Rule 5 of Schedule III. A bare reading of the Rule makes it clear that the presiding member has a right to exercise a second vote or casting vote which can only mean that the said second or casting vote is in addition to an already existing voting power to such presiding member. This can only be the possible construction especially in the circumstances that admittedly, the 6th respondent was elected as the Chairperson of the council only by virtue of her election as a councillor and it is nobody’s case that by becoming the Chairman of the council she ceases to be the councillor of the ward from which she was elected from among the voters. 31. The above said construction is supported by another fact that as it was earlier in existence, the Chairman is not elected from public as a Chairman and the election of the Chairman is only from among the councillors elected from public. 32. It is further relevant to point out that apart from the fact that one of the members of the council is elected as a Chairman, in the absence of the Chairman any one of the other members can preside over the meeting and that is why the word used in Rule 5 of Chapter III is "Presiding, member". Therefore, it is clear that the 6th respondent having been elected as a councillor from a particular ward continues to be the councillor has got a deliberate voting power on any issue and her right of second or casting vote in cases where the members are equally divided is in addition to her deliberate voting power as a member of the council. 33. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the State Government has passed G.O.329 LA dated 21. 1939, explaining about the casting vote. The said G.O. is as follows: "Casting vote.—The Chairman has a vote like every other councillor. In every case of equality of votes, he has also, and is bound to exercise, a second or casting vote under Rule 5 of Schedule III of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. 1939, explaining about the casting vote. The said G.O. is as follows: "Casting vote.—The Chairman has a vote like every other councillor. In every case of equality of votes, he has also, and is bound to exercise, a second or casting vote under Rule 5 of Schedule III of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. As regards his first ordinary vote, the Chairman is in exactly the same position as the other councillors and his vote must be given at the same time and in the same manner as the votes of the other councillors. Thus, if the voting is by a show of the councillors hands or by standing in their places, he should also lift his hand or stand in his place when the other councillors voting in the same sense have to lift their hands or stand in their places. The Chairman is under a legal obligation to exercise his casting vote in every case of equality of votes irrespective of whether he has or has not exercised his ordinary or first vote as a councillor." 34. The said Government Order makes it abundantly clear that the Chairman retained his power to vote as councillor and in cases of equality of division among the voters irrespective of whether he has exercised his ordinary first vote or not he would have the second vote as a casting vote. 35. In view of the above said legal position, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion in the present case that the voting by the 6th respondent first time as a member of the council and the second time as the Chairman by putting the casting vote, is perfectly in accordance with law and the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary deserves to be rejected. 36. The fact that one among the elected councillor shall be elected as a Chairman and on the Chairmans losing the status as a councillor, he seizes to be the Chairman is made clear under Section 12 of the Act. As amended by Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006 by which Section 12(2) stands as follows: "Every council shall elect one of its members to be its Chairman" and Section 12(4) after amendment which stands as follows: "4. As amended by Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006 by which Section 12(2) stands as follows: "Every council shall elect one of its members to be its Chairman" and Section 12(4) after amendment which stands as follows: "4. A Chairman shall be deemed who have vacated his office on expiry of his term of office as a councillor or on his otherwise seizing to be the councillor.” 37. In view of the above legal position applying the same to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the impugned resolution passed by the 5th respondent council including the order of suspension is either illegal or against the provisions of the Act. 38. In any event at this stage it is relevant to point out that in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent Government in paragraph No.5, it is clearly stated as follows: "5. It is submitted that while the Government was actively considering the resolutions, this Honble Court was pleased to pass an interim order as if that the Chairperson cast her vote contrary to Rule 5 of the Schedule III of the said Act." 39. This makes it clear that it is under the consideration of the Government and that is as per the powers under Section 36 of the Act. Even though the said power of the Government under Section 36 of the Act either to suspend or cancel resolution, etc., cannot be termed as a statutory appellate power, inasmuch as the counter of the first respondent makes it clear that the said issue is pending before the Government, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed also on the basis that it is premature. Proviso to Section 36 makes it clear that before the State Government takes any action either to set aside the resolution, license, etc., an opportunity to be given to the authority or person concern for explanation. The said Section 36 is as follows: "36. Power to suspend or cancel resolutions, etc. Proviso to Section 36 makes it clear that before the State Government takes any action either to set aside the resolution, license, etc., an opportunity to be given to the authority or person concern for explanation. The said Section 36 is as follows: "36. Power to suspend or cancel resolutions, etc. under Act.-(1)The State Government may, by order in writing (i) Suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or license or permission granted, or (ii) prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done in pursuance or under colour of this Act, in their opinion, a) such resolution, order, license, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorized, or b) such resolution, order, license, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or of any other law, or c) the execution of such resolution or order, the continuance in force of such license or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or is likely to a riot or an affray: Provided that the State Government shall before taking action under this Section on any of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) and (b) give the authority or person concerned an opportunity for explanation: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall enable the State Government to set aside any election which has been held." In view of the same there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion the Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed on the basis that it is premature. 40. The next and final issue to be decided is as seen in the prayer in the Writ Petition that action to be taken under Section 38 and 41 of the Act. The said provisions are as follows: "38. State Governments power to appoint officers to supervise municipalities (1) The State Government may appoint such officers as may be required for the purpose of inspecting or superintending the operations of all or any of the municipal councils established under this Act. (2) All schools, hospitals, dispensaries, vaccine stations, choultries and other institutions maintained by any municipal council and all documents relating thereto shall at all time to be open to the inspection of such officers as the State Government may appoint in that behalf. (2) All schools, hospitals, dispensaries, vaccine stations, choultries and other institutions maintained by any municipal council and all documents relating thereto shall at all time to be open to the inspection of such officers as the State Government may appoint in that behalf. (3) Municipal authorities and municipal officers and servants shall be bound to afford to inspecting or superintending officers appointed under this Section such access at all reasonable times to municipal property or premises, and to all documents subject to any Rules framed for their guidance under Section 303(1) and (2)(K) they may consider to be necessary to enable them to discharges their duties of inspection or superintendence. 41. State Governments power to dissolve or supersede council-- (I) If, in the opinion of the State Government, the municipality is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it by law or exceeds or abuses its powers, the State Government may, by notification.-- (a) dissolve the municipality from a specified date; and (b) direct that the municipality be reconstituted with effect from a date which shall not be later than, six months from the date of dissolution." 41. While Section 38 empowers the State Government to appoint officers to supervise Municipalities, Section 41 enables the State Government to dissolve or supersede the council. A reading of the said Sections show that while Section 38 by which officers are appointed to supervise the Municipalities are routine in nature to enable the Government to have upto date knowledge about each of the Municipalities, when the Government invokes its powers under Section 41 of the Act it has to make out an opinion that the Municipality was not competent to perform or constantly commits default in performing its duties or exceeds its power or performing abuse of powers. Therefore, power under Section 41 is in cases of delinquency which is a very serious situation while Section 38 which is a routine inspection by the officials, which cannot be applied to the facts of the case. The facts of the case as such does not warrant any direction to be given to the Government under Section 41 to dissolve the Municipality. In any event, such power being the power to be exercised by the State Government, it is not for this Court to give any such directions, which would result in dissolution of the elected council. The facts of the case as such does not warrant any direction to be given to the Government under Section 41 to dissolve the Municipality. In any event, such power being the power to be exercised by the State Government, it is not for this Court to give any such directions, which would result in dissolution of the elected council. The concept of judicial review is exercisable in cases where an act has been done which is against law and not in cases where the State Government has to Corm its opinion on the facts and circumstances. Inasmuch as it is stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent in paragraph No.5 that the resolutions passed by the present Municipality is under consideration of the Government, it is not possible for this Court to give any direction to the Government to invoke Section 41 of the Act. 42. Therefore, looking at any angle the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed.