Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 as well as the subsequent Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.286 & 287 of 2013 are at the instance of the members of Ambiligai Village Panchayat, Ottanchathiram Panchayat Union, Dindigul and the challenge is to the order passed by the Panchayat, disqualifying them from the membership of Panchayat and the refusal to permit them to attend the panchayat meeting in spite of the suspension of resolution by the District Collector in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.16750 of 2012 is at the instance of the Ambiligai Village Panchayat and the challenge is to the order passed by the District Collector dated 16th November 2011 suspending the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, disqualifying the Petitioners In W.P.(MD) Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 from the membership of the village panchayat. Background Facts: W.P.(MD) Nos.13745, 13746 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013: 3. The Petitioners were elected from ward Nos.4&6 respectively of Ambiligai Village Panchayat. The Petitioners were not permitted to take oath, resulting in filing Writ Petitions before this Court. It was only thereafter, they were permitted to take oath of office. 4. The husband of the Village Panchayat President unsuccessfully contested against the Petitioner in W.P.No.13745 of 2012. Since he was defeated, he wanted to take revenge against the Petitioner and the elected member of 6th ward . The local body convened a meeting on 28th December 2011 in the office of the Panchayat. Though the Petitioners reached the panchayat office well within the time, they were informed that the meeting was over. The Petitioners made a Complaint in this regard before the District Collector and the Block Development Officer. The Petitioners thereafter received a notice on 17th January 2012 intimating them that the Panchayat meeting will be conducted on 25th January 2012. Even though they reached the venue well in advance, they were informed that the meeting has already been conducted and resolutions were passed. The Petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the District Collector and the Block Development Officer requesting them to intervene in the matter so as to enable them to take part in the next meeting. The District Collector and the Block Development Officer deputed officials to oversee the next meeting. The Panchayat meeting was thereafter held on 22nd March 2012. The Petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the District Collector and the Block Development Officer requesting them to intervene in the matter so as to enable them to take part in the next meeting. The District Collector and the Block Development Officer deputed officials to oversee the next meeting. The Panchayat meeting was thereafter held on 22nd March 2012. The Petitioners were restrained by the husband of the Panchayat President and his men and therefore, they could not attend the meeting and sign the register. The Block Development Officer who was present as an independent officer during the council meeting, submitted a Report to the District Collector that the Petitioners failed to attend the meeting consecutively on three occasions. The Panchayat passed a resolution disqualifying the Petitioners from the membership of Panchayat. The resolution passed by the Panchayat on 18th May 2012 disqualifying the Petitoners was sent to the District Collector by the President of the Panchayat vide communication dated 25th May 2012. The District Collector in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayats, passed a consequential order on 17th October 2012, disqualifying the Petitioners from the membership of village panchayat. The order 25th May 2012 and the consequential order dated 17th October 2012 are challenged in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012. 5. The District Collector, after amendment of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2008, suspended the resolution vide order dated 16th November 2012, pending decision by the Government under Section 41 of the Panchayat Act. The Petitioners thereafter called upon the Panchayat President to permit them to attend the meeting. Their request was rejected by the President of the Panchayat vide order dated 18th December 2012. The said order is under challenge in W.P.Nos.286 & 287 of 2013. W.P.(MD) No.16750 of 2012: 6. The order passed by the President Ambiligai Village Panchayat, on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat on 18th May 2012, disqualifying the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 from the membership of the Panchayat, was originally accepted by the District Collector vide proceedings date 17th October 2012. W.P.(MD) No.16750 of 2012: 6. The order passed by the President Ambiligai Village Panchayat, on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat on 18th May 2012, disqualifying the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 from the membership of the Panchayat, was originally accepted by the District Collector vide proceedings date 17th October 2012. The said order was suspended at a later point of time by the District Collector vide order dated 16th November 2012 on the ground that after the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the question of disqualification requires to be decided by the Government. The said order dated 16th November 2012 is challenged by the Ambiligai Village panchayat in W.P.No.16750 of 2012. Summary of Submissions: 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.No.13745 & 13746 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013, hereinafter referred to as the `members’ contended that the husband of the Panchayat President and his men prevented the members from attending the panchayat meeting in spite of their arrival near the meeting hall well in advance. According to the learned Counsel, disqualification is not automatic. Subsequent to the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the question of disqualification requires to be decided by the Government and only thereafter, it could be said that the members ceased to hold office on account of their continuous absence. The learned Counsel further contended that the District Collector has already suspended the resolution and as such, the Panchayat President was bound to permit the members to attend the meeting. 8. The learned Counsel for the Panchayat justified the action taken by the village panchayat, disqualifying the members from the council membership. According to the learned Counsel, there is no need to pass a formal order by the Government to disqualify the members in case they failed to attend the meeting for three consecutive months. The learned Counsel placed reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and submitted that a member shall cease to hold office if he absents himself from the meeting of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. The moment the Petitioners absented from the meeting of the Panchayat for three consecutive meetings, disqualification would attract automatically and as such, the members in the subject case attracted the disqualification. Analysis: 9. The moment the Petitioners absented from the meeting of the Panchayat for three consecutive meetings, disqualification would attract automatically and as such, the members in the subject case attracted the disqualification. Analysis: 9. The disqualified members were elected from ward Nos. 4 & 6 respectively. The members have taken up a specific contention that the husband of the Panchayat President contested against the Petitioner in W.P.No.13745 of 2012 and lost election. Therefore, he was determined to unseat his opponent and his friend from office. 10. According to the Panchayat President, the disqualified members failed to attend the panchayat meeting for a period of three consecutive months from the date of commencement of the term of office and as such, they suffered disqualification under sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The Panchayat earlier passed a resolution disqualifying them from membership. The resolution was passed prior to the amendment made to sub-section 3 of Section 38 of the Panchayat Act [substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2008]. The District Collector, in his capacity as the Inspector of Panchayat, accepted the resolution and passed a formal order disqualifying them from holding office. Subsequently, the Act was amended. 11. Section 41 of the Panchayat Act, after amendment, conferred power on the Government to decide as to whether an elected member of the Panchayat has become disqualified under sub-section (3) Of Section 38 of the Act. It was only thereafter, the District Collector passed an order suspending the earlier resolution on 16th November 2012 which is challenged in W.P.No.16750 of 2011. The Issue: 12. The core question that arises for consideration is whether a member would suffer disqualification automatically in case he absented himself from the meeting of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. 13. The learned Counsel for the Panchayat took a specific contention that the disqualification is automatic and no formal order is required to be passed. The Statute: 14. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, after amendment, reads thus: “38. 13. The learned Counsel for the Panchayat took a specific contention that the disqualification is automatic and no formal order is required to be passed. The Statute: 14. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, after amendment, reads thus: “38. Disqualification of members.- (1) A member convicted of an offence as described under sub-section (1) of Section 37 shall be disqualified, where the convicted member is sentenced to- (i) Only fine, for a period of six years from the date of such conviction; (ii) imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. (2) A member convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 37 shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. (3) Subject to the provisions of Section 41, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he- (a) becomes of unsound mind, or a deaf-mute; (b) applies to be adjudicated, or is adjudicated, as an insolvent; (c) acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with or any work being done any Panchayat except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a Company or except as permitted by Rules made under this Act. (d) is employed as paid legal Practitioner on behalf of the Panchayat or accepts employment as legal Practitioner against any Panchayat; (e) is found that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tried, but has been elected from the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (f) is appointed as an officer or servant under this Act; (g) ceases to reside in the village, panchayat union or the district, as the case may be; (h) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in fiduciary capacity) to any Panchayat within three months after such arrears became due; or (i) absents himself from the meeting 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 subsection (1) of Section 39, as the case may be, or if within the said period, less than 3 meeting 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;” 15. Section 41 of the Act, which gives power to the Government to take a decision in the matter, reads thus: “41. Authority to decide Questions of disqualification or cessation of members.- (1) If any question arises as to whether any person who has been elected as a member of a Panchayat or who becomes a member of a Panchayat is not qualified or as become disqualified under Section 33 or Section 34 or Section 35 or sub-section (3) of Section 38 or 38-A or cessation under Section 40, the question shall be referred by the Inspector to the Government whose decision shall be final. (2) Before taking any such decision on such question, the Government shall obtain the opinion of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.” 16. (2) Before taking any such decision on such question, the Government shall obtain the opinion of the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.” 16. The question raised by the Petitioners and the Panchayat, represented by its President, requires to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Sections 38 & 41, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act, 39 of 2008. 17. It is true that sub-section (3) of Section 38 used the words “a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he absents himself from the meetings of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of commencement of his term of office”. In case, cessation of membership is automatic, the Proviso appended to the said provision would become meaningless. The Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 38 very clearly provides that no meeting, from which a member absented himself shall be counted against him if due notice of that meeting was not given to him; or that the meeting was held after giving shorter notice than prescribed for an ordinary meeting; or the meeting was done on a requisition of members. 18. In case a too technical interpretation is given holding that a member shall cease to hold office in case he fails to attend the meeting for a period of three consecutive months without ascertaining as to whether due notice was given, or the meeting was held after giving shorter notice, or the meeting was held on a requisition of members, anybody can disqualify a member in spite of the factual position that his case would be covered under the Proviso and its three sub-clauses. The Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 38 indicates three contingencies to take action. If Section 38(3)(1) of the Act is construed as an automatic cessation, a member who got a valid defence and who is having the benefit of the three contingencies, as provided under the Proviso, has to wait till an adjudication is made by the Government under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. 19. Section 41 of the Act which was substituted by Tamli Nadu Act 39 of 2008, gives a clear indication that the Government is the Appropriate Authority to decide the question as to whether a person has become disqualified under sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act. 19. Section 41 of the Act which was substituted by Tamli Nadu Act 39 of 2008, gives a clear indication that the Government is the Appropriate Authority to decide the question as to whether a person has become disqualified under sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act. In case disqualification is automatic, and it would come into operation forthwith, there is no need to indicate that cessation is subject to the provisions of Section 41 of the Act. 20. The statutory provisions should be given a meaningful and workable interpretation. In case the interpretation given by the Counsel for the Panchayat is accepted, the members, who got muscle power, would be in a position to disqualify members by preventing them from attending three meetings consecutively. The disqualified members in this case has come up with a specific case that the President of the Panchayat prevented them from attending the meeting. Democratically elected members of the Panchayat could be removed from office only in case it is proved that they incurred a disqualification. In view of Section 41 of the Act, it is to be inferred that disqualification would come into play only in case of passing an order by the Government on a reference made by the District Collector. 21. The District Collector, after the introduction of Section 41, has forwarded the papers to the Government. The Government is now seized of the matter. Disqualification would come into effect only in case the Government arrives at a conclusion that the concerned members have absented themselves from the meeting of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. 22. The District Collector has already suspended the resolution passed by the Panchayat vide order dated 17th October 2012. The matter is now pending before the Government. Till the Government takes a decision in the matter, the order passed by the District Collector suspending the resolution dated 17th October 2012 would be in force. 23. The District Collector in his capacity as Inspector of Panchayat, passed an order, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 202 of the Act. In view of my finding that the disqualification would come into effect only after passing the order by the Government under Section 41 of the Act, necessarily, it is to be held that the District Collector was justified in suspending the resolution. In view of my finding that the disqualification would come into effect only after passing the order by the Government under Section 41 of the Act, necessarily, it is to be held that the District Collector was justified in suspending the resolution. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the Panchayat challenging the order passed by the District Collector. 24. The Panchayat has passed an order declining the request of the disqualified members to attend the meeting. Since the order disqualifying the members would come into effect only after passing an order by the Government and in view of the pendency of the matter with the Government, necessarily, disqualified members should be permitted to attend the meeting of the Panchayat. The Panchayat took a hyper technical attitude in the matter and maintained that the disqualified members would not be permitted to attend the meeting. Now that I have concluded that the order of disqualification is subject to the orders to be passed by the Government, necessarily, disqualified members should be permitted to attend the meeting of the panchayat. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the Panchayat dated 18th December 2012. 25. The President, Ambiligai Panchayat is directed to permit the disqualified members to attend the meeting of the Panchayat. Since the Government is the Statutory Authority under Section 41 of the Act, to take a decision in the matter, appropriate orders should be passed by the Government in the subject matter as expeditiously as possible with notice to all the parties concerned.Disposition: 26. In the result, the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.13745 & 13746 of 2012 & 286 & 287 of 2013 are allowed. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.16750 of 2012 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.