Accept nomination of woman panchayat president, rules Madras HC

Chennai: The Madras High Court has directed the TN State Election Commission to accept the nomination of a woman panchayat president to contest in the ensuing local body election. A division bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and R. Mahadevan disposed of a petition from N. Sarala Devi, who was elected as president for Thanigaipolur village panchayat, Arakkonam panchayat union during the local body elections held in 2011 under the reserved category of women, challenging an order of the TN State Election Commission dated October 7, 2013, disqualifying her for three years on the premise that she has not filed the accounts as mandated under law.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as early as on Oct-ober 23, 2011, Deputy Block Development Officer (Panchayat) Panchayat Union, Arakkonam has received the accounts submitted by the petitioner. Merely because the said officer has since retired, it cannot be said that the same was not received. She was allowed to continue in the capacity as President till now. Thus, the impugned order has not been served on her and it cannot be served in the teeth of the section 37 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, he added.

Senior counsel appearing for the TN State Election Commission submitted that the petitioner was aware of the showcause notice issued, which she has ackn-owledged. The impugned order non-suits qualification of the petitioner for a period of 3 years, he added. The bench said the petitioner was allowed to function as the president till now. Section 37 (4) mandates that an order of disqualification would become complete by a notification in the government gazette. Therefore, the said order would come into play only if the said exercise was being carried out. In this case, there was no Gazette publication.

Perhaps that was the reason why the petitioner was allowed to continue as President. Relying upon the impugned order, which has not been gazetted as mandatory under section 37 (4) of the said Act, the petitioner cannot be disqualified, the bench added. The bench said this court was of the view that, though the order cannot be faulted with in strict sense, taking into account the allegation of the petitioner that the said order has not been served on her coupled with the further fact that there was no Gazette publication giving effect of the said order, there was no question of disqualification of the petitioner under the eye of law.

“Accordingly a direction is issued to the authorities to accept the nomination of the petitioner, as ultimately what the petitioner has prayed for in the petition is for an opportunity to contest in the ensuing election”, the bench added.