Judgment :- Admit. M/s. Patham Associates takes notice for third respondent. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the above writ petition are set out below: The petitioner is the vice-President of seelapadi Panchayat. The President of the Panchayat Mr. R. Subba Naidu died on 26.10.2007 and on his death the petitioner made a representation dated 19.01.07 to the first respondent requesting to appoint him as President of Seelapadi Panchayuat temporarily in the light of the provisions contained in Section 47(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1944 herein after called as the Act. 3. According to the petitioner without considering the representation, the first respondent has permitted the second respondent temporarily to execute the Panchayat administration and other duties by order dated 20.11.2007. In the said order, the first respondent has observed in Paragraph No.6 as follows: "a group of ward members of Seelapadi Panchayat have brought No Confidence Motion against Vice President and the special meeting to be held in the office of Tahsildar, Dindigul on 23.11.2007, while so, the Vice President would not be given the charge of President". 4. According to the petitioner, the no confidence motion against the petitioner failed. Pursuant there to, the petitioner again made a representation dated 24.12.2007 to the first respondent to appoint him as President of Seelapadi Panchayat but no orders were passed. In the meanwhile, by the impugned proceedings, the first respondent had appointed the third respondent, a ward member, as President temporarily on 28.12.2007 which is being challenged. 5. It is the contentions of the petitioner that when the office of President is vacant, as per Section 47 (1) of the Act, the vice-President shall exercise the functions of the President until a new President is declared elected and assumes office. 6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that even as per section 47(3) of the Act, the functions of the President shall devolve on a member of the village panchayat appointed by the Inspector, only when there is either a vacancy in the office of vice-President or the vice President has been continuously absent from jurisdiction for more than thirty days or is incapacitated. According to the petitioner, none of the contingencies contemplated in Section 47(3) of the Act are present in this case enabling the first respondent to exercise the power under Section 47(3) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not continuously absent from the jurisdiction for more than thirty days and he is not incapacitated to act as the President. 7. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter contending as follows: There are several allegations as against the petitioner. The erstwhile President made a complaint dated 10.08.2007 against the petitioner alleging misappropriation of funds of the panchayat and hence the District Collector had to cancel the cheque signing power of the petitioner. But, it is also admitted that the said proceeding was set aside by the this Court in W.P.No.7349 of 2007. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is only the name lender and is a puppet in the hands of her husband Mr.Senthilkumar, who is interfering with the peaceful functioning of the Panchayat in the previous tenure. There had been various complaints against the petitioner and her husband for misusing the powers of the panchayat and for receiving illegal gratification from the panchayat staff in sanctioning their respective salary by way of demanding 10% commission over the contract amount. Since there had been several allegations against the petitioner she was not appointed as the President and the third respondent was appointed as President temporarily. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is not a fit and proper person to be appointed as the temporary President of the Seelapadi Panchayat. 8. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the main contention of the third respondent is since there are several allegations against the petitioner and her husband including allegations of corruption, the first respondent is justified in not appointing the petitioner as a temporary President and is justified in appointed him as the President. 9. Heard Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though several allegations have been leveled against the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed by first and third respondents, none of these allegations have been referred to or mentioned in the impugned proceedings. 9. Heard Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though several allegations have been leveled against the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed by first and third respondents, none of these allegations have been referred to or mentioned in the impugned proceedings. According to him, the impugned proceedings does not contain any reason whatsoever for not appointing the petitioner as a temporary President and as such the new reasons now stated in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that if the allegations made against the petitioner in the counter affidavit are true nothing prevented the first respondent from taking steps to remove the petitioner from the post of Vice-President by invoking the provisions contained in Section 206 of the Act. The petitioners contention is that as vice-President of the panchayat, since there is no incapacity on his part, the first respondent ought to have appointed the petitioner as temporary President. Even assuming that there are allegations against the petitioner, such allegations cannot be construed to incapacitate the petitioner from acting as President temporarily. 12. Countering the said allegations, Mr. R. Manoharan, learned Government Advocate submitted that since very serious allegations have been made against the petitioner it will not be in the interest of the Panchayat to appoint the petitioner temporarily as President of the panchayat. If the petitioner is appointed, there is every possibility for the petitioner to misappropriate the funds of the panchayat. According to the learned Government Advocate, the serious allegations made against the petitioner should be taken as an incapacity on the part of the petitioner to function as the President. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent reiterated the contention put forth in the counter and adopted the submission made by the learned Government Advocate. 14. I have carefully considered the submission made on either side. 15. To appreciate the contentions put forth on either side it will be useful to refer to the provision contained under Section 47(1) and (3) of the Act which reads as follows: 47(1) When the office of President is vacant, the vice-President shall exercise the functions of the President until a new President is declared elected and assumes office. 15. To appreciate the contentions put forth on either side it will be useful to refer to the provision contained under Section 47(1) and (3) of the Act which reads as follows: 47(1) When the office of President is vacant, the vice-President shall exercise the functions of the President until a new President is declared elected and assumes office. (2) If the president has been continuously absent from jurisdiction for more than thirty days or is incapacitated, his functions during such absence or incapacity shall, except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, devolve on the vice-president. 3. When the office of President is vacant or the President has been continuously absent from jurisdiction for more than thirty days or is incapacitated and there is either a vacancy in the office of vice-President or the vice-President has been continuously absent from jurisdiction for more than thirty days or is incapacitated, the functions of the President shall devolve on a member of the village panchayat appointed by the Inspector in this behalf, and if no member of the village panchayat is available for such appointment, on such person as may be appointed by the Inspector in this behalf. The member of the village panchayat or the person so appointed (who shall be called as the temporary president) shall perform the functions of the president subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, until a new president or vice-president is declared elected and assumes office, or either the president or the vice-president returns to jurisdiction or recovers from his incapacity, as the case may be. 16. From a reading of the above said provisions, it is clear that when the Office of the President is vacant, the vice President shall exercise the functions of the President temporarily until a new President is declared elected and assumes office. But notwithstanding that if the conditions contemplated under Section 47(3) of the Act are satisfied, then the Inspector of Panchayat namely District Collector need not appoint the vice-President as President temporarily but can appoint some other member as the temporary President. Therefore the question that has to be considered is whether the conditions contemplated under Section 47(3) of the Act were available enabling the first respondent to overlook the claim of the petitioner and appoint some other member as the temporary President of the panchayat. Therefore the question that has to be considered is whether the conditions contemplated under Section 47(3) of the Act were available enabling the first respondent to overlook the claim of the petitioner and appoint some other member as the temporary President of the panchayat. 17.A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that no acceptable reason whatsoever has been stated therein for not appointing the petitioner as temporary President of the panchayat. But now the reasons for not appointing the petitioner as the temporary President of the panchayat are sought to be supplemented in the counter affidavit, which in the considered view of this Court, cannot be permitted. 8. In the decision reported in Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978(1) Supreme Court Cases 405), the apex court has observed in Paragraph 8 as follows: "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. 19. If the above said law laid down by the apex court is applied to the facts of this case, the reasons as now stated in the counter affidavit by the first respondent cannot be taken into considerations at all. 20. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. 19. If the above said law laid down by the apex court is applied to the facts of this case, the reasons as now stated in the counter affidavit by the first respondent cannot be taken into considerations at all. 20. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner if the allegations made against the petitioner in the counter affidavit are true, nothing prevented the first respondent from taking steps to remove the petitioner from the post of vice-president by invoking the provisions contained in Section 206 of the Act. Merely because certain allegations have been made against the petitioner from that it cannot be said that the petitioner is incapacitated and on that ground the first respondent ought not to have appointed some body else other than the petitioner as the temporary President of the Panchayat. While appointing the vice-president as President of the panchayat temporarily, the first respondent is empowered under Section 47(3) of the Act itself to prescribe restrictions and conditions subject to which the vice-president can be directed to discharge the functions as a temporary President. Therefore to safe guard the interest of the panchayat, the first respondent can prescribe the necessary restrictions and conditions subject to which the petitioner can be directed to perform the functions of the President. 21. Therefore as pointed out above, since the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No Cost. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.