K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. A certain poramboke, which was vested in the Panchayat by reason of Section 86 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, was taken out by the Collector and assigned to the second respondent. That was sought to be quashed. But Ramaprasada Rao, J., declined to interfere.
2. The short ground in the appeal is that there was no consultation by the Collector with the Panchayat as required by Section 86 (3). That section is clear that the Collector, after consulting the Panchayat, may, by notification, exclude from the operation of the Act any poramboke referred to in Sub-section (2). The Collector, after following the procedure, may also modify or cancel the notification. It was said on behalf of the Collector that a notice was sent to the Panchayat President, but that the latter refused to receive it. The President has sworn to an affidavit denying any such refusal. Ramaprasada Rao, J., was of the view that if the President refused, that would amount to sufficient consultation.
3. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge. When the President himself has sworn to an affidavit that he had not refused, there is no reason to reject that version. If that that so, there was clearly no consultation. Even assuming that the President refused to receive the notice, that would not amount to consultation either. Consultation means that the person who has to consult, must place all the facts before the person to be consulted, so that the latter can apply his mind and express his views. Consultation further involves that it is Only after ascertaining the views of the person to be consulted and considering the same the Collector could come to a decision. He need not necessarily accept the views offered by the person consulted. But he must certainly have the views of that person before him so that they may influence his decision.) We cannot say that in the circumstances there was such consultation of the Panchayat. Notice might have been sent to the Panchayat and, merely because it was refused, the Collector was not justified in proceeding straightaway. But, as we said, we are also not satisfied that the President had at all refused to receive the notice.
4. On that view the appeal is allowed, which means that so far as the second respondent is concerned the assignment will also stand set aside. But we make it clear that the disposal of the appeal will not in any way restrict the Collector of Government from taking further action. No costs in the Appeal.