ORDER The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue notice of the panchayat meeting to be held in the panchayat so as to enable her to participate in the meeting during the pendency of the proceedings initiated before the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli invoking Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The petitioner is an elected member of the first respondent panchayat from Ward No.12 for the period from 2006-2011. The petitioner assumed office on 25.10.2006 and was functioning as such. 3. The petitioner failed to attend the panchayat meeting held on 26.2.2007, 27.3.2007 and 30.4.2007. The non-attendance was due to various reasons. Her absence on 30.4.2007 was on account of hospitalization of her mother at Sivakasi. Therefore, she sent a letter on 11.4.2007 to the first respondent expressing her inability to attend the meeting to be held in the month of April, 2007. 4. While so, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10.5.2007 calling for explanation for non-attending three consecutive meetings. To the said notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 12.5.2007, wherein besides denying the averments in the notice, the petitioner also appears to have indicated that the second respondent was bound to give notice informing the member who has not attended two consecutive meetings. The explanation offered by the petitioner was placed before the Panchayat at its meeting held on 6.6.2007. The explanation was not accepted by the Council and as such, the petitioner was disqualified under Section 50(i) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and therefore, the petitioner ceased to be a member of the panchayat. The decision taken by the second respondent as per proceedings dated 6.6.2007 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in E.O.P. No. 4 of 2007 invoking Section 51 of the Act. The said petition is still pending consideration before the learned District Judge. 5. According to the petitioner, she was not in a position to move the learned District Judge for an early disposal of the matter, as there was no Presiding Officer to take up the matter. The said petition is still pending consideration before the learned District Judge. 5. According to the petitioner, she was not in a position to move the learned District Judge for an early disposal of the matter, as there was no Presiding Officer to take up the matter. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to direct the respondents to issue the notice of Panchayat Council meeting to her so as to enable her to attend the meeting pending the proceedings before the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli. 6. I have heard Mr. H. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Chellapandi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 7. The petitioner was removed from the membership of the first respondent panchayat as per the decision taken by the panchayat on 6.6.2007, invoking Section 50(i) of the Act. Admittedly, the proceedings dated 6.6.2007 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli invoking Section 51 of the Act. The statute gives power to the District Judge to decide as to whether the order of disqualification made against a member on account of her failure to attend the meeting of the panchayat Council for a period of three consecutive months was legal. 8. Section 50 of the Act provides for automatic cessation of membership of a Councillor, in case he suffers any of the disqualifications within the meaning of sub clause (a) to (i) of the said provision. No further proceedings were contemplated to confirm the disqualification. The Councilor was required to protect the interest of the Municipality/Town Panchayat. When the Councilor incurs a disqualification under Section 50 of the Act, he ceases automatically to hold the elected office. 9. Section 51(3) of the Act provides that pending decision by the District Judge in a matter relating to a disqualification proceeding, the Councilor shall be entitled to act as if he was not disqualified. The said provision was inserted for the purpose of permitting the Councilor to attend the meeting, inasmuch as the main issue as to whether the order passed by the Panchayat Council to disqualify the Councilor on account of his failure to attend the panchayat meeting has to be determined by the District Judge as a statutory authority. The said provision was inserted for the purpose of permitting the Councilor to attend the meeting, inasmuch as the main issue as to whether the order passed by the Panchayat Council to disqualify the Councilor on account of his failure to attend the panchayat meeting has to be determined by the District Judge as a statutory authority. Therefore, the statute provides that the decision taken by the panchayat would be subject to the determination of the District Judge under Section 51 of the Act, in case of a challenge to such decision. 10. Since Section 51(3) of the Act provides that the disqualified member was entitled to attend the panchayat meeting, as if he or she was not disqualified, I am of the view that there was no necessity for making an application before the District Judge for permitting the petitioner to take part in the panchayat meeting during the pendency of the statutory proceedings. The respondents are bound to permit the petitioner to attend the panchayat meeting, in view of the mandatory provision as contained in Sub-Clause (3) of Section 51 of the Act. 11. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for issuance of a Writ of mandamus as prayed for. 12. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that no steps would be taken by the petitioner to dispose of the proceedings in E.O.P. No. 4 of 2007, in the event of permitting her to take part in the Council meeting as per the mandate of Section 51(3) of the Act. The said apprehension has no basis. The District Judge was expected to dispose of the proceeding at the earliest. Even for deciding an election dispute, maximum period prescribed was six months, unless the District Judge, for reasons to be recorded in writing, adjourn the proceeding beyond the period prescribed by statute. Therefore, it is open to the parties to request the learned District Judge to take up and dispose of the original petition as expeditiously as possible. 13. The first respondent is directed to issue the notice of meeting to the petitioner, in the event of convening any such meeting in the panchayat and such notice shall be sent by registered post with acknowledgment due or by personal service, giving reasonable time to the petitioner to attend the meeting. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Petition allowed.