MR.SATYANARAYANA RAJU,J. - (1.)This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Court of the District Munsif of Tanuku, dated 17th February, 1958, under section 19 (1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, declaring that it petitioner was not qualified to be a member of the Panchayat Board.
(2.)In the village of Aravalli in the West Godavari District, there is a public market and the right to collect fees therein was auctioned by the then President of the Panchayat Board on 17th March, 1956, fora period of one year commencing from 1st April, 1956. In the said auction, the petitioner offered the highest bid for a sum of Rs. 2,050. It was alleged by the respondent that on 11th April, 1956, the petitioner executed a written agreement in favour of the Panchayat Board undertaking to collect fees in the weekly market at certain rates and pay certain amounts to the Panchayat in monthly instalments ; but this was denied by the petitioner. The lower Court found that there was no proof that a written agreement was executed by the petitioner. It is, however common ground that the auction was confirmed by,a resolution of the Panchayat Board on the 23rd April, 1956. On the 28th April, 1956, the petitioner made an application to the Panchayat Board alleging that he had transferred his right of collecting fees in the public market to one Venkata Reddi and he requested the Board to recognise the transfer. The transfer was not, however, recognised by the Board. At an election held on 8th May, 1956, under the provisions of the Madras Village Panchayats Act hereinafter referred to as '(the Act).' the petitioner and the respondent were elected as members of the Panchayat Board. Shortly thereafter the petitioner was also elected as the President of the Board.
(3.)On 18th October, 1956, the respondent herein filed an application under section 19 (i) of the Act for a declaration that the petitioner was not qualify to be a member of the Panchayat by reason of section 16, clause (2) (c) of the Act as he had then an interest in a subsisting contract with the Panchayat Board. The petitioner resisted the application on the following two among other grounds: (1) that there was no valid contract between him and the Panchayat Board as there was no written contract of lease executed by him in favour of the Panchayat Board as required by the rules; and (2) that even though it may be deemed that he was interested in a subsisting contract the contract amounts to a lease of immoveable property which entitles him to the exemption under the provisions of clause (1) of Notification No. V.