Judgment As all the above writ petitions are inter-connected with each other, they are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Three writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.10257 of 2012 & W.P.(MD).Nos.4131 & 5689 of 2013 are related to withdrawal of cheque signing power of the petitioner, President of the Manthithoppu Village Panchayat, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi. The other two writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.3399 & 8560 of 2013 are related to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-President of the said Panchayat, under Section 205 of the Panchayat Act to remove him from the post of President. Facts relating to Cheque signing power 2(1). The petitioner viz. Mariyappan contested to the post of President of Manthithoppu Vilage Panchayath, Kovilpatti Taluk and his supporters contested to the post of Ward Members of the said panchayat, as a group, in the last local body election held in the year 2011. Against the petitioner, one Mani contested for the post of President and his supporters contested to the post of Ward Members. In the said election, the petitioner Mariyappan was elected as President of the said panchayat and only two of his supporters were elected as Ward Members. Though the said Mani was defeated in the election, who had contested to the post of President, seven persons from his group were elected as Ward Members and one among them was elected as Vice-President. Panchayat Clerks are also supporters of the said Mani, opposite party of the petitioner herein. 2(2). Since the Vice-President and all the Ward Members, except two Ward Members, belong to the said Mani's group, the petitioner-President could not pass any resolution with regard to the welfare of the panchayat people because all the Ward Members, except two persons, would reject the resolution. The panchayat clerks are also disobeying the orders of the petitioner-President from the beginning itself. Hence, the petitioner-President made complaints before the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) and Block Development Officer in this regard. But, they did not take any action against those persons. Since the Vice-President of the said panchayat viz., Murugan (5th respondent in W.P.(MD).5689 of 2013) refused to sign the cheques, the petitioner-President was not in a position to operate cheque power. 2(3). But, they did not take any action against those persons. Since the Vice-President of the said panchayat viz., Murugan (5th respondent in W.P.(MD).5689 of 2013) refused to sign the cheques, the petitioner-President was not in a position to operate cheque power. 2(3). While situation stood thus, the Vice-President viz., Murugan and his group have given a complaint against the petitioner-President alleging loss of funds of the said panchayat, for which the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) issued a show cause notice, dated 21.05.2012, to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 04.06.2012, to the said show cause notice. But, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the District Collector has withdrawn the cheque signing power of the petitioner and handed over the same to the Block Development Officer vide., his proceedings in Cep5/2198/2012, dated 22.06.2012. 2(4). Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD).No.10257 of 2012 seeking to quash the said proceedings of the District Collector, dated 22.06.2012, and consequently, to direct the District Collector to give cheque signing power to the petitioner alone, contending that the action of the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) is against law and natural justice. 2(5). Along with the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.10257 of 2012, the petitioner has filed a petition in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 seeking to stay all further proceedings of the District Collector. On 26.07.2012, this Court has granted an order of interim stay as prayed for. 2(6). Since this Court has granted interim stay of the operation of the impugned order, dated 22.06.2012, passed by the District Collector, withdrawing the cheque signing power of the petitioner-President, a petition in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.10257 of 2012 has been filed by the 1st respondent – District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) to vacate the interim stay, inter alia contending that so many complaints have been received from the public and Ward-Members as against the petitioner-President alleging loss of funds of the panchayat. Hence, the Assistant Director (Audit), Thoothukudi and Block Development Officer, Kovilpatti, had inspected the Manthithoppu Village Panchayat on 09.05.2012 and found that the Cash Book for panchayat general fund was updated only upto 23.01.2012 and it was not reconciled with the Bank Pass Book and as such, they were not able to calculate and inspect the expenditure for the months of February & March, 2012 onwards. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the Panchayat Secretary vide Block Development Officer, Kovilpatti vide Notice No.T3/1728/2012, dated 08.05.2012. Further, the petitioner-President was also issued with a show cause notice under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, vide proceedings of the District Collector in Notice No.PA5/2198/2012, dated 21.05.2012. In the meantime, a proposal had already been sent to the Personal Assistant (Development), to take action against the Panchayat Secretary. Further, it came to light that a sum of Rs.5,24,815/- was paid through cheques Nos.990351 to 990375 vide Bank Pass Book and there were no documents for this expenditure. The petitioner-President failed to follow the Rules & Regulations prescribed under G.O.No.43, Rural Development (C-4) Department, dated 21.02.2000. The petitioner-President is responsible person for the lapses of the village panchayat. The expenditure incurred in Manthithoppu Village Panchayat from November-2011 were not approved properly by the Village Panchayat Council Meeting. The petitioner-President has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses. It was found that the funds of the panchayat was misappropriated and misused by the petitioner-President. Hence, a show cause notice dated 21.05.2012 under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was issued to the petitioner and the same was served on him on 25.05.2012. The petitioner submitted his reply vide., his letter dated 04.06.2012. But, the reply submitted by the petitioner was vague and the petitioner failed to substantiate the financial loss made by him to the panchayat. Hence, after following all the procedures contemplated under law and after due application of mind, vide., proceedings dated 22.06.2012, petitioner's cheque signing power was withdrawn by the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) and the same was transferred to the Block Development Officer. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 2(7). Subsequently, on the application filed by the petitioner, the Block Development Officer has passed an order vide., his proceedings in No.3/1728/12, dated 19.02.2013, directing the petitioner-President to get the signature of the Vice-President of the panchayat in the cheques, for the purpose of administration of the panchayat. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 2(7). Subsequently, on the application filed by the petitioner, the Block Development Officer has passed an order vide., his proceedings in No.3/1728/12, dated 19.02.2013, directing the petitioner-President to get the signature of the Vice-President of the panchayat in the cheques, for the purpose of administration of the panchayat. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner-President has filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4131 of 2013, contending that the Vice-President (4th Ward-Member), who is a co-signatory of the cheques, had already been disqualified from the Membership as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, since he absented himself from the meetings of panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. 2(8). The petitioner has also filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5687 of 2013 seeking for issuance of a mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 & 5 viz., Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda, Kovilpatti Branches from insisting the petitioner-President to get the co-signature of the Vice-President in the cheques issued by the petitioner-President. Facts relating to proceedings initiated against the petitioner 3(1). According to the petitioner, the Ward-Members belonging to the other group namely Ward Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 of Manthithoppu Village Panchayat are not co-operating and not even coming to the meetings of the panchayat. It is further case of the petitioner that they have not attended the panchayat council meetings held on 14.09.2012, 15.10.2012 & 16.11.2012, inspite of receipt of notice for the above said three meetings. Hence, those ward-members, who absented themselves for three consecutive meetings, shall cease to hold office as per Section 38(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (As amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008). In fact, disqualification of Ward Members viz., Ward Members Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 of Manthithoppu Panchayat was intimated to the District Collector (Inspector of Panchayat) on 20.11.2012 as per G.O.Ms.No.66, Rural Development Department, dated 14.03.2000. The petitioner has also made a request to the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats to take steps for conducting election to the said Wards by informing the same to the Election Commission. While so, some of the Ward-Members, who ceased to hold office on account of their absence in three consecutive panchayat meetings, made a complaint to the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat against the petitioner/President. While so, some of the Ward-Members, who ceased to hold office on account of their absence in three consecutive panchayat meetings, made a complaint to the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat against the petitioner/President. Based on the said complaint, the District Collector issued a show cause notice, dated 30.11.2012, under Section 205(1)(a) of the Tamail Nadu Panchayats Act, to the petitioner seeking explanation from him. The petitioner has challenged the said notice, dated 30.11.2012, before this Court in a writ petition, but this Court has granted time for the petitioner to submit his explanation. Hence, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.01.2013 to the said show cause notice to the District Collector. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk has issued the impugned notice dated 21.02.2013 for the meeting of the Panchayat Council to be held on 05.03.2013 at 11.00 a.m., under his Presidentship and asked the Members of the Council to express their view regarding the financial loss of the panchayat. The said notice was served upon the petitioner herein only on 04.03.2013, for the meeting to be held on 05.03.2013. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3399 of 2013 challenging the notice dated 21.02.2013 and to quash the same. 3(2). In the said writ petition viz., W.P.(MD).No.3399 of 2013, the petitioner has raised mainly two grounds, which are as follows:- (a) the impugned notice dated 21.02.2013 for the meeting scheduled to be held on 05.03.2013 was served to the petitioner only one day prior to the meeting. Hence, the same is against Sub-Section 4 of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, which mandates that a notice of the meeting shall be delivered to the Member atleast seven days before the date of meeting. Since the impugned notice has been served to the petitioner only a day prior to the date of meeting, the same is liable to be quashed. (b) the proceedings of the Tahsildar is not valid, since he has issued the notice to the Ward-Members, who ceased to hold office of the Members under Section 38(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008), in view of their absence for three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat Council. 3(3). Pending the writ petition, on 05.03.2013, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P. (MD).No.3399/2013, this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. 3(4). 3(3). Pending the writ petition, on 05.03.2013, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in W.P. (MD).No.3399/2013, this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. 3(4). Since the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3399 of 2013 was filed mainly on the ground that the impugned notice dated 21.2.2013 for the meeting to be held on 05.03.2013, was not served to the petitioner prior to seven days of the said meeting, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Tahsildar subsequently issued a fresh notice dated 14.05.2013 for the panchayat council meeting to be held on 29.05.2013 at 3.00 pm, under his Presidentship for the very same purpose of obtaining the views of the members regarding the financial loss of the panchayat. Hence, challenging the subsequent notice dated 14.05.2013, the petitioner has filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8560 of 2013 contending that as per sub-section (6) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the meeting adjourned shall be convened not later than 30 days from the date of the first meeting. In the case on hand, since the meeting dated 29.05.2013 is beyond 30 days or exceeds 30 days from the date of the first meeting dated 05.03.2013, the subsequent notice dated 14.05.2013 and the meeting pursuant to the said notice are invalid. 3(5). A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent (District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats), denying the allegations made by the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.8560 of 2013. 4. I have carefully heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Now, for the sake of convenience, before dealing with the issue with regard to withdrawal of cheque signing power of the petitioner-President raised in three writ petitions in W.P. (MD).Nos.10257 of 2012 & W.P.(MD).Nos.4131 & 5689 of 2013, at first, it would be appropriate to deal with the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.3399 & 8560 of 2013, which have been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings of the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, to remove him from the post of President. 6. 6. In respect of this issue, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are on two folds_ 6(1)(i) Notice dated 21.2.2013 issued by the Tahsildar for the panchayat council meeting to be held on 05.03.2013 under his Presidentship to obtain the views of the Members of the Council regarding the financial loss caused to the panchayat, is against Sub-Section 4 of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Section 205(4) of the said Act, notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the President and to all the Members of the Wards at least before seven days from the date of the meeting. In the case on hand, notice was served to the petitioner/President only on 04.03.2013 for the meeting to be held on 05.03.2013. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD).No.3399 of 2013 challenging the said notice dated 21.02.2013. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued a fresh notice dated 14.05.2013 by fixing the date of panchayat council meeting on 29.05.2013. The subsequent notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.8560/2013. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.8560/2013 that the subsequent notice dated 14.05.2013 is in violation to sub-section 6 of Section 205 of the said Act. As per Section 205(6) of the Act, if a meeting is adjourned, the same shall be convened not later than 30 days from the first meeting. But, in the instant case, originally the meeting was scheduled to be held on 05.03.2013. The thirty days' time expires on 04.04.2013, whereas the Tahsildar has issued the fresh notice only on 14.05.2013 fixing the date of meeting as 29.05.2013, which is beyond 30 days / exceeds 30 days from the date of first meeting. Therefore, the notice dated 14.05.2013, which is challenged in W.P.(MD).No.8560 of 2013, is liable to be quashed. 6(ii) But, it is the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that under Section 205 (6) of the said Act, only if the Tahsildar is unable to proceed with the meeting, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting and only in such case, the next meeting has to be held before expiry of 30 days. 6(ii) But, it is the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that under Section 205 (6) of the said Act, only if the Tahsildar is unable to proceed with the meeting, he may, after recording the reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting and only in such case, the next meeting has to be held before expiry of 30 days. But, in the instant case, the first meeting was not adjourned by the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has not convened the meeting because of the interim stay granted by this Court. Hence, the provisions under Section 205(6) of the said Act cannot be made applicable to the present case. Hence, the notice dated 14.05.2013 issued by the Tahsildar is not in violation of the provisions under Section 205(6) of the Act. 6(iii) In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it would be appropriate to extract Section 205(4) and 205(6) of the Act; 205. Removal of President_ (1) to (3) ..... (4) A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the president and to all the members of the village panchayat by the Tahsildar at least seven days before the date of the meeting. (5) .... (6) If the Tahsildar is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall be not later than thirty days from the date so appointed for the meeting under sub-section(3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the members and the president of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting.” A close reading of the above said provisions would show that if the Tahsildar is unable to preside over at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting not later than 30 days from the date of meeting scheduled to be held under Sub-Section 3 of Section 205 of the Act. But, in the instant case, the Tahsildar was restrained from conducting the meeting in view of the interim stay granted by this Court. Since the earlier notice dated 21.02.2013 was not served on the petitioner before seven days to the said meeting, a fresh notice was given by the Tahsildar, dated 14.05.2013, by fixing the meeting date as 29.05.2013. But, in the instant case, the Tahsildar was restrained from conducting the meeting in view of the interim stay granted by this Court. Since the earlier notice dated 21.02.2013 was not served on the petitioner before seven days to the said meeting, a fresh notice was given by the Tahsildar, dated 14.05.2013, by fixing the meeting date as 29.05.2013. Only in the case of adjournment of the meeting by the Tahsildar himself, the subsequent meeting has to be held within 30 days from the date of earlier meeting. Here, the Tahsildar has not adjourned the meeting, on the other hand he was restrained by the interim stay granted by this Court from conducting the meeting on 05.03.2013. Therefore, the subsequent notice dated 14.05.2013 has to be construed as a fresh notice issued for the meeting scheduled to be held on 29.05.2013. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the notice dated 14.05.2013 is in violation to Section 205(6) of the said Act. 6(2)(i) The next fold of submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, asking the members of the Panchayat council to express their views regarding financial loss of panchayat, is not valid, since he has issued notice to the Ward Members, who ceased to hold office of the Ward-Member under Section 38(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008). According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Ward-Members Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 have not attended the panchayat council meetings held on 14.09.2012, 15.10.2012 & 16.11.2012 and as such, automatically they ceased to hold office of Ward-Member under Section 38(3)(i) of the said amended Act and the same was informed to them by the petitioner by notices dated 20.12.2012 and 20.11.2012. As per Section 38(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008), if the Members fail to attend the Panchayat Council Meeting for three consecutive months, automatically they shall cease to hold office and in this regard, no formal order is necessary. As per Section 38(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008), if the Members fail to attend the Panchayat Council Meeting for three consecutive months, automatically they shall cease to hold office and in this regard, no formal order is necessary. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner made an elaborate argument by inviting the attention of this Court to the provisions of Madras Panchayat Act, 1958 and Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (amended Act 7, 2008) and Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 39/2008). (ii) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 26(j) of the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958, if a Ward-Member absents himself for three consecutive months, he shall cease to hold office. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 28(2) of the said Act, the executive authority or the commissioner, as the case may be, if so directed by the panchayat or pachayat union council or by the Inspector, shall, and any such member or any other member may, apply to the prescribed judicial authority within two months from the date of intimation of the disqualification and he can continue as a Member till the final decision is rendered by the prescribed judicial authority. The said provisions viz., Sections 26 & 28 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, were rearranged in Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 as Sections 38 and 41. But, now, under the amended Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008 (which is called as Tamil Nadu Panchayats (seventh amendment) Act 2008), a rider to apply to the prescribed judicial authority by the Member was taken away. Now, as per Section 41 of the amended Act 2008, only if any question arises with regard to the disqualification of the Ward-Member, the said question shall be referred by the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats to the Government and the Government's decision will be final. If, no question arises, on the intimation sent by the Panchayat President with regard to disqualification of the Ward-Member on account of absence for three consecutive meetings, his disqualification comes to an end. If, no question arises, on the intimation sent by the Panchayat President with regard to disqualification of the Ward-Member on account of absence for three consecutive meetings, his disqualification comes to an end. In the instant case, intimation was sent to the Ward-Members Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 vide notice dated 20.12.2012 and 20.11.2012 and they have not chosen to question or raise any dispute on receipt of such intimation sent by the petitioner/President and therefore, they automatically ceased to hold office and their disqualification has come to an end. Under such circumstances, subsequent notice dated 14.05.2013 for the meeting scheduled to be held on 29.05.2013 issued by the Tahsildar is not legally sustainable. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 1964 (2) MLJ 380 in the case of K.Kuppusawamivs. The Council of the Corporation of Madras, rep by the Mayor, Madras and another. In the said case, the Division bench of this Court, while dealing with similar provisions viz., Section 53(1) and 54 of the Madras City Municipal Act, has held as follows:- “It is plain from the terms of Section 53(1)(i) that the period of absence which would result in the forfeiture of his office by a Councillor is to be calculated from the date of the meeting he last attended. This was the construction placed on an analogous provision in Subbaroya Goundan v. Muthukumaraswami Goundan and Thiruppuliswamy v. Manickam. It is also clear from the terms of the section extracted above that no formal act of any authority is necessary to put an end to the membership of a Councillor who had absented himself for three consecutive months from the date when he last attended a meeting of the Council. The cessation of membership is automatic on such absence. The Act, however, makes provision for restoration of the member who lost his office by reason of the provision contained in Section 53(1)(i). That provision is contained in sub-section (4) of Section 53 which says: "In the case of a person who has ceased to be a councillor in consequence of failure to attend meetings the matter shall be reported by the Commissioner at the next ordinary meeting and the Council may at that meeting restore such person to office." .......... The office of Councillor of Corporation is not a common law office. The office of Councillor of Corporation is not a common law office. It is a creature of statute. The tenure or the termination of the office depends on the terms of the statute, Section 53 enacts several grounds by which a Councillor once elected will lose his office even before his period has expired. Continuous absence at meetings of the Corporation for a period of three consecutive months would entail loss of office, with the result that there would arise a vacancy. Section 55-A(2) provides for the filling up of such casual vacancies. If a Councillor fails to attend the meetings of the Council for a period of time, it would mean that the Division he represents goes without representation in the council. It is the essence of proper civic administration that the elected Councillors who represent the various Divisions in the City should attend the meetings of the Council and protect the interest of those whom they represent. Failure to attend meetings would affect the rate-payers who are represented by the concerned Councillor. Section 53, therefore, provides a sanction against the default by forfeiture of office for continuous absence. It also makes a provision for a fresh representation by election by the Division whose representatives thus fail to attend. At the same time an exception is provided by sub-section (4) by vesting discretionary power in the Council to restore the member. Such power, if exercised, will have the effect of preventing a fresh election. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that the restoration of the Councillor should be made quickly. We shall later point out the inconvenience that will result if that power is not exercised within the time prescribed by the statute. Section 53(4) expressly lays down the mode of exercising the power by saying that the restoration can be made by the Council at its first ordinary meeting after the office had been lost by the absentee Councillor. It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, the maxim being expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” Thus, by relying upon the above judgment, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that cessation of the membership is automatic, if the member absented himself for three consecutive meetings. It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, the maxim being expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” Thus, by relying upon the above judgment, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that cessation of the membership is automatic, if the member absented himself for three consecutive meetings. Now in view of substituted provision of Section 41 of amended Act 39/2008, only if any question has been raised by the Member with regard to his disqualification, the same shall be referred to the Government and till the Government takes the decision, his disqualification would continue. In the instant case, no question has been raised by the Ward-Members with regard to their disqualification; therefore, the question of referring the dispute with regard to disqualification to the Government does not arise in this case. (iii) Further, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the judgment reported in 1980(1) MLJ 149 (C.Krishnamurthi Vs. The Divisional Development officer, Chidambaram and others), submitted that the disqualification once suffered by an elected member by reason of one or other of the grounds mentioned in the relevant section is automatic and the same continues after his sufferance and there is no snapping of such disqualification, until, the defaulter takes action on his own initiative or the authorities takes such action for the removal of such a disqualification in the manner known to law and even if such steps were taken, until he succeeded in the adjudication and obtained a favourable decision of the adjudicating authority, which alone would efface the disqualification. Therefore, in the case on hand, the disqualification of the Ward-Members Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 9 has come to an end, since no question has been raised by them with regard to their disqualification to enable the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats to refer the same to the Government. (iv) Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 there is a provision for the disqualified member to approach the prescribed judicial authority and if he approaches the prescribed judicial authority and files an application questioning his disqualification, he can continue as a Ward-Member till the final decision is taken by the prescribed judicial authority. Further, now under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994 (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008), if any question arises with regard to disqualification, the same shall be referred by the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats to the Government and till the Government takes the final decision, he shall not become disqualified. In this regard, the learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (as amended by Act 39/2008 and submitted that a Member can be disqualified on various grounds. Section 38(3)(i) speaks about the disqualification of the Member, if the Member absented himself from the meetings of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months. All the grounds mentioned in Section 38(3) of the said Act are subject to the provisions of Section 41. Thus, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Section 38 and Section 41 have to be read together and the word “if any question arises” mentioned in Section 41 is only in reference to various grounds mentioned in Section 38. There is no need for raising any question independently by the disqualified member. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the judgment reported in 2013(1) CW 706 (N.S.Ramasamy Vs. State) and submitted in the said case, the learned single Judge of this Court has held that if cessation of Membership is automatic on account of non-attendance of three consecutive meetings, the proviso appended to Section 38(3) would become meaningless. (v) In view of the above submissions made on either side, the following question falls for consideration - Whether the cessation of membership is automatic on account of non-attendance of three consecutive meetings or is it subject to the provisions of Section 41 of the Act (amended Act), and Whether reference with regard to disqualification of the Ward-Member of a panchayat by the District Collector to the Government is automatic or not? (vi) Before dealing with the above said questions, it would be appropriate to extract Sections 38 and 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2008 (Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008). (vi) Before dealing with the above said questions, it would be appropriate to extract Sections 38 and 41 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2008 (Tamil Nadu Act 39/2008). The Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 Tamil Nadu Pachayats (Seventh Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 39/2008) Section 38: Disqualification of members – Subject to the provisions of Section 41, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he – (a) is sentenced by a criminal court to such punishment and for such offences as is described in sub-section(1) of section 37; (b) is convicted of an offence punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act XXII of 1955); (c) becomes of unsound mind or of deaf-mute; (d) applies to be adjudicated, or is adjudicated, as an insolvent; (e) acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with or work being done for any panchayat except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this act; (f) is employed as paid legal practitioner on behalf of any panchayat or accepts employment as legal practitioner against any panchayat; (ff)is found that he does not belong to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, but has been elected from the seat reserved for Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe; (g) is appointed as an officer or servant under this Act; (h) ceases to reside in the village, the panchayat union or the district, as the case may be; (i) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity) to any panchayat within three months after such arrears became due; or (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. Section 38: Disqualification of members – (1) A member convicted of such 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. (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 work being done for, 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 any panchayat or as legal practitioner against any Panchayat; (e) is found that he does not belong to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, but has been elected from the seat reserved for Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe; (f) is appointed as an officer or servant under this Act; (g) ceases to reside in the village, the panchayat union or the district, as the case may be; (h)fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity) to a panchayat within three months after such arrears became due; or (i) 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. Section 41:Authority to decide questions of disqualification of members – (1) Whenever it is alleged that any person who has been elected as a member of a panchayat or who becomes a member of a panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Sections 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40, the executive authority or the commissioner or the secretary as the case may be, shall, by notice in writing inform such member of the allegation and place the matter at the next meeting of the panchayat concerned. If before the date of the expiry of two months from the date of receipt of such notice, such member does not apply to the prescribed judicial authority under sub-section (2), he shall become not qualified or disqualified from such date of expiry of the said two months. (2) The executive authority or the commissioner or the secretary, as the case may be, if so directed by the panchayat or by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner, shall, or any such member or any other member may apply to the prescribed judicial authority whose decision on such allegation shall be final. Section 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 member of a Panchayat or who becomes a member of a Panchayat is not qualified or asbecome 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. (v) According to the petitioner, if a Member absented himself for three consecutive Panchayat meetings, he shall cease to hold office automatically. But, a perusal of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (As amened by Tamil Nadu 39/2008) would show that under the said provision various grounds have been provided for disqualification of a Member of the Panchayat. Prior to the Amendment to the said Act (vide Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2008), all the ground mentioned in Section 38 are subject to the provisions under Section 41 of the said Act. Prior to the Amendment to the said Act (vide Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2008), all the ground mentioned in Section 38 are subject to the provisions under Section 41 of the said Act. But, after the amendment, except the first two grounds mentioned in Section 38, all the other grounds are subject to the Section 41. Section 38(3)(i) of the Act (Amended Act), says that if a member 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 3 meetings have been held, absents himself in the three consecutive meetings held after the said date, he shall cease to hold office. But, it is subject to the provisions under Section 41. (vi) But, Section 41 of the amended Act states that 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 has become disqualified under Section 33 or Section 34 of Section 35 of 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. (vii) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, cessation of the Membership is automatic, who absented himself for three consecutive meetings. In the case of any question raised by him independently with regard to his disqualification, then only the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats is bound to refer the matter to the Government and till the Government renders its final decision, he continues to be in disqualification. If he fails to raise any question, his cessation of membership comes to an end. (viii) But, I am unable to accept this submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner because Section 41 and 38 cannot be read in isolation. The grounds mentioned under Section 38(3) for disqualification of member of the Panchayat are only subject to Section 41. When a provision of law is subject to another provision of law, both the provisions have to be read conjointly and not in isolation. The grounds mentioned under Section 38(3) for disqualification of member of the Panchayat are only subject to Section 41. When a provision of law is subject to another provision of law, both the provisions have to be read conjointly and not in isolation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the word "subject to" in the judgment reported in 2011 (9) SCC 1 (K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another Vs. State of Karnataka), by referring expression "subject to " in the Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition-page 1278), has held as follows:- "65. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn. at page 1278, the expression "subject to" has been defined as under: "Subject to - Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or effected by; provided that; provided answerable for." The word "subject to" conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject." Therefore, the grounds mentioned under Section 38(3) for disqualification are yielding to the provision of Section 41 of the Act. That being so, the words ”if any question arises” mentioned in Section 41 is only with regard to the various grounds mentioned in Section 38(3). Under such circumstances, whether concerned disqualified member raises a question or not, the Inspector of Panchayat is bound to make a reference with regard to the question of disqualification to the Government and till the final decision is rendered by the Government, he continues to be a Member and his disqualification is subject to the final decision of the Government. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General reported in 2013 (1) CWC 706 [N.S. Ramasamy Vs. State], wherein it has been held as follows:- “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. The Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 38 indicates three contingencies to take action. If Section 38(3)(i) 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 Tamil 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.” The above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in this case, according to the petitioner, the Ward-Members have not attended the meetings. But, according to the Ward-members, they have participated in the meetings. Under such circumstances, if the interpretation of the provisions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is accepted, there will be a vacuum in the post of Ward-Member very often, which would defeat the very object of the Act. (ix) Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon number of judgments, I am of the opinion, those judgments were delivered under the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958. (ix) Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon number of judgments, I am of the opinion, those judgments were delivered under the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958. Under the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958, disqualified member can approach the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court. Similarly, prior to the amendment Act, 2008, the disqualified member can approach the prescribed judicial authority questioning the disqualification. Therefore, there is a clear check and balance under the above said Act. Likewise, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2008, a reference with regard to the disqualification under Section 38(3) is mandatory, otherwise as observed in the judgment referred to in 2013 (1) CWC 706 [N.S. Ramasamy Vs. State], a President/Member, who has got muscle power can easily disqualify a Member by preventing him from attending three meetings consecutively, without any check and balance. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, where there is a provision for a disqualified member to approach the judicial authority, the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. (x) In fact, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the recent judgment reported in 2014(1) L.W 750 [M. Visvasam Vs. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Mela Neelithanallur & others), in support of his contention that the cessation is automatic. But, in the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has not dealt with the effect of the words “subject to the provisions of Section 41” mentioned in Section 38(3). (xi) It is yet another submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994, (as amended by T.N. Act 39 of 2008) deals with restoration of members to office. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the word 'restoration' used in Sub-section 2 of Section 39 would clearly indicate that cessation of membership under Section 38(3)(i) of amended Act is automatic. (xii) In view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to extract Section 39 of the Act. “39. Restoration of Members to Office:- (1) ........ (xii) In view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to extract Section 39 of the Act. “39. Restoration of Members to Office:- (1) ........ (2) Where a person ceases to be a member under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 38, the Executive Authority or the Commissioner or the Secretary as the case may be, shall, at once intimate the fact in writing to such person and report the same to the Panchayat concerned at its next meeting. If such person applies for restoration suomotu to the Panchayat concerned on or before the date of its next meeting or within fifteen days of the receipt by him of such intimation, such Panchayat may at the meeting next after the receipt of such application restore him to his office of member” In my considered opinion, the said provision would apply only if the disqualified member admits his absence and applies for restoration on or before the date of next meeting or 15 days from the date of intimation of his disqualification, to the executive authority or the commissioner or the Secretary as the case may be. Under such circumstances, the concerned authority may consider for restoration. If the disqualified member does not admit his disqualification, then the question of restoration does not arise and under such cases, the matter has to be necessarily referred to the Government for final decision. Therefore, the provisions under Section 39(2), in my considered opinion, will not support the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the cessation of membership is automatic, since as observed earlier, the cessation is subject to the final decision of the Government. Further, in my opinion, Section 39(2) has to be looked into by considering the wordings deployed in Sections 38(3) and 41 together. Conclusion on the issue relating to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the notice dated 14.05.2013 issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the Members and President to attend the meeting. Therefore, the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.3399 & 8560 of 2013 are liable to be dismissed. However, I find that the date of meeting mentioned in the notice dated 14.05.2013 viz., 21.05.2013 has already expired and the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).No.3399 & 8560 of 2013 have become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.3399 & 8560 of 2013 are liable to be dismissed. However, I find that the date of meeting mentioned in the notice dated 14.05.2013 viz., 21.05.2013 has already expired and the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).No.3399 & 8560 of 2013 have become infructuous. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed and the Tahsildar is at liberty to issue fresh notice and conduct the panchayat council meeting. Issue relating to cheque signing power: 8. The writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.10257/12 and W.P.Nos.4131 2013 have been filed by the petitioner contending that the Inspector of Panchayat has no power under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, to withdraw the cheque signing power of the petitioner/President. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on the judgment reported in 2013(2) CTC 846 [Logeswari VS. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli and others], wherein it has been held as follows:- “21. The Collectors are very often exercising this power to take away the cheque signing powers of the President and Vice President. The power to sign cheque is a statutory power conferred on the President and Vice President under Sub-Section (3) of Section 188 of the Act. The President and the Vice President are under the general control of the village panchayat. The statutory power given to the President of the Panchayat or Vice President cannot be taken away by the Inspector of Panchayat, by exercising the emergency powers. Since the cheque signing facility is given by the statute, there should be a specific power conferred upon the Inspector of Panchayats to take away such power. So long as there are no specific provisions to take away the cheque signing power of the President or Vice President, the Collector cannot invoke incidental or emergent powers to divest the elected representatives of their statutory right. 22. The Inspector of Panchayats is given power under Section 205 of the Act to remove the President from office. Similar powers are given under Section 206 of the Act for the purpose of removal of Vice President. Sub-Section (b) of Section 205(1) of the Act gives authority to the Inspector of Panchayats to take action against the President of Panchayat, in case it is made out that the President abused the power vested in him. Similar powers are given under Section 206 of the Act for the purpose of removal of Vice President. Sub-Section (b) of Section 205(1) of the Act gives authority to the Inspector of Panchayats to take action against the President of Panchayat, in case it is made out that the President abused the power vested in him. In case it is made out that the President abused the cheque signing power, and misappropriated the public funds, the same can be a valid reason to initiate action for removal under Section 205 of the Act.” Thus, by relying upon the above judgment, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats has no power under Section 203 of the Act to take away the cheque signing power of the President of the Panchayat. The District Collector is given power under Section 205 of the Act to initiate action against President of the Panchayat in case it is made out that the President abused the cheque signing power and misappropriated the public funds. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the Judgment, reported in 2011 (2) CTC 386 [K.Susindran Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District], wherein speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, I held the following- “11. When the proceedings is initiated as against the President of village related to financial misdeeds, we are of the view that the transferring the cheque signing power from the Village President to Block Development Officer, the Second Respondent is definitely a case of emergency fitting within the provisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the Appellant is allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorsing the alleged irregularities committed by the Appellant. Moreover, the transferring of cheque signing power is only an interim arrangement, till the completion of the proceedings initiated as against the appellant under Section 205 of the Act.” Therefore, in view of the above decision, I am of the opinion, as observed in the said judgment, transferring the cheque signing power from the petitioner-Village President to Block Development Officer is definitely a case of emergency fitting within the provisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the petitioner is allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorsing the alleged illegality committed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is allowed to continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorsing the alleged illegality committed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.10257/2012 and W.P.(MD).No.4131 of 2013 are liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the conclusion arrived at in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.5689 of 2013, which has been filed seeking to forbear the Banks from insisting the petitioner to get the co-signature of the Vice-President, is also liable to be dismissed. Disposition In the result, all the above writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.