The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challlenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.7.2009 and further forbear the respondents 2 to 16 from attending the meeting of the Municipal Council of Chengalpattu Municipality as they are disqualified to hold the post of Councilors of Chengalpattu Municipality.
2. The case of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition in nutshell is stated hereunder:
(2.1) The petitioner is a Chairman of the Chengalpattu Municipality. Besides her, there are 32 Ward Councilors, of which 15 Councilors are respondents 2 to 16 in this Writ Petition.
(2.2) Section 50(i) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 deals with disqualification of Chairman or Councilors. A reading of Section 50(i) would render a Councilor disqualified if he absents for three consecutive meetings of the last meeting which he attended and in case he is so disqualified, the first respondent should intimate such Councilor the factum of his disqualification in writing and report the same to the council at its meeting. If the disqualified Councilior applied for restoration suo motu to the council on or before the next date of the meeting within 15 days of the receipt of the information, the council may at the next meeting restore him or her to the said office.
(2.3) The respondents 2 to 16 did not attend the council meeting on 2.3.2009 and 29.5.2009. For the meeting held on 15.7.2009, the respondents 2 to 16, after receiving the notice sent by the 1st respondent just before the meeting commenced came to the chamber of the petitioner or came to the meeting hall signed the attendance register and immediately went out of the municipal office building. Thus, consecutively they did not attend the meeting held on 2.3.2009, 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009. The petitioner therefore addressed a communication to the first respondent on 29.7.2009 about the said fact, but however, a reply was sent by the first respondent dated 30.7.2009 stating that the respondents 2 to 16 were not disqualified, in view of the fact that they did attend the meeting. Therefore, the petitioner was obliged to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 13th respondent, wherein the following facts have been set out:
(3.1) The Councilors have moved the authorities for taking necessary action against the petitioner, who by her illegal act had defeated the purpose of reservation and holds the post of Chairman of the first respondent, which she is not entitled to. The representation made to the first respondent for disqualification is because the respondents 2 to 16 have moved the authorities for her removal. He attended the meeting along with other Councilors and placed on record the protest for the subjects as well as protested for the Chairman heading the Council meeting because she does not have the qualification to hold the said post.
(3.2) The meeting held on 2.3.2009 would not come within the purview of the routine council meeting, since the same was an urgent meeting. As regards the council meeting held on 29.5.2009, he was present along with other Councilors at the time of schedule for council meeting. The petitioner had taken away the attendance register and the respondents 2 to 16 could not sign the register. On 15.7.2009, council meeting was to be held and the agenda for the same was circulated. The councilors attended the meeting on 15.7.2009, signed the attendance register and thereafter protested for the various resolutions. Thus, the records will amply prove that the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the council meeting on 15.7.2009. The counter affidavit, therefore, seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. I have heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 16.
5. The first and foremost submission that was made on behalf of the petitioner, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 16 have not attended the meeting on 2.3.2009, 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009 consecutively and hence they are disqualified as per Section 50(i) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter called as "Act"). Further, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mere signing of the attendance register by the respondents 2 to 16 on 15.7.2009 will not hold good and cannot be considered as attending the meeting, as contemplated under section 50(i) of the said Act.
6. However, Mr.Raja Kalifullah, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 16 contended that the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the meeting on 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009 and it is not true to say that they did not attend the said meetings. As far as the meeting that took place on 2.3.2009 is concerned, since it is an urgent meeting, it will not come within the purview of the routine council meeting as per Section 50(i) of the said Act.
7. Before dealing with the question whether the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the meeting on 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009 or not, I am inclined to deal with the meeting that was held on 2.3.2009. A specific averment was made in the counter affidavit filed by the 13th respondent that the meeting held on 2.3.2009 was an urgent meeting, which would not come within the purview of the routine council meeting. Admittedly, there is no denial of the said fact by filing a reply affidavit.
8. Explanation to Section 50(i) of the said Act states that "a meeting held under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of Schedule III or rule 3 of that Schedule shall not be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of the said clause". Sub Rule 2 of Rule 2 of Schedule III reads as follows:
"In case of urgency, the Chairman may convene a meeting on giving prior notice other than the notice specified in Sub Rule 1"
9. It is the case of the respondents 2 to 16 that the meeting held on 2.3.2009 was urgently called by the Chairman and hence it shall not be deemed to be a meeting normally called for. This statement made in the counter affidavit is not denied by filing a reply affidavit, by the petitioner. Thus, the statement made by the respondents 2 to 16 that the meeting held on 2.3.2009 was an urgent meeting convened by the Chairman, which will not come within the purview of the meeting as per Section 50(i) of the Act has to be accepted. If so, it cannot be said that the respondents 2 to 16 absented themselves for three consecutive meetings.
10. Even otherwise, it is stated by the petitioner that the respondents 2 to 16 have not attended the meeting on 15.7.2009, which fact is being disputed by the respondents 2 to 16 and as well as by the 1st respondent.
11. Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that mere signing the register will not hold good and they should have attended and participated in the meeting. However, Mr.Raja Kalifullah, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 16 would submit that the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the meeting on 15.7.2009, signed the attendance register and thereafter placed on record, protesting for the resolutions and hence it shall be constructed as "attended meeting".
12. Admittedly, the word "attend" is not defined in the Act. It would be useful to extract Section 50(i) of the Act and the same is reproduced hereunder:
(i) absents himself from the meetings of the council for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of commencement of his term of office, or of the last meeting which he attended, or of his restoration to office as councilor under sub-section (4), as the case may be, within the said period, less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from three consecutive meetings held after the said date:
Provided that no meeting from which a councilor absents himself shall be counted against him under this clause, if due notice of that meeting was not given to him.
Explanation:- A meeting held under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of Schedule III or rule 3 of that Schedule shall not be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of this clause."
13. The said provision states that absent from the meeting of the council for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of the commencement of the term of office ssor of the last meeting which he attended or of within the said period, less than three meetings have been held, absents himself from three consecutive meetings held after the said date, will disqualify the Councilors. The said provision does not speak about participating in the meeting. It clearly says only 'absenting'. In the given case on hand, it is the definite case of the respondents 2 to 16 that they have attended the meeting on 15.7.2009 and signed the attendance register and thereafter left the meeting after placing on record their protest for the resolutions. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents 2 to 16 have not attended the meeting at all. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 2 to 16 came , signed the register and went off. Nowhere in the Act, it is stated that mere signing of the register cannot be construed as absenting the council meeting.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to Clause 5 of Schedule III. Schedule III deals with Rules regarding proceedings of the council. Clause 5 reads that "all questions which may come before the council at any meeting shall be decided by a majority of the members present and voting at the meeting and in every case of equality of votes, the presiding member shall have and exercise a second or casting vote. The said provision cannot be equated with Section 50(i) of the Act for the purpose of disqualification. As per Section 50 (i) of the Act, he or she ought to have absented himself or herself in three consecutive meetings. The word that has been used in the said provision is "attend". It does not mean participation in the council meeting. For "deciding a matter in issue", Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in quoting Rule 5 of Schedule III.
15. The first respondent considered the grievance of the petitioner and it passed the impugned order on the representation made by the petitioner dated 29.7.2009 stating that the respondents 2 to 16 have attended the meeting on 29.5.2009 and 15.7.2009.
16. I do not see any error in the order of the first respondent. In fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.