K. Srinivasan, J.
1. Section 152(10) of the Madras Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) prohibits any debate at the time of consideration of a motion of no confidence in the President of a Panchayat. In the present case the complaint of the petitioner,. President is that this mandatory provision has been violated and that therefore the result of the proceedings stands vitiated. The writ prayed for is to quash the proceedings of the Collector notifying the removal of the President from the office oh the basis of the resolution in question.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector it is stated that the meeting was held on 3rd March, 1962, and that the members who were present considered each and every charge and passed the resolution of no confidence against the President and that this cannot be considered a debate on the motion. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner along with which he filed a true translation of the proceedings of the Panchayat at that meeting. This record shows that the Vice-President and five other members embarked upon a consideration of the charges and the explanation given by the President and dealt with charge after charge and expressed their conclusions. Two other members expressed themselves otherwise stating that the explanation offered by the President was quite satisfactory and that the Vice President and the five others who sought to remove the President from office had manoeuvred and brought about the above charges. The record also shows that the meeting commenced at 3 p.m. and ended at 4-30 p.m.
3. There is no doubt whatsoever that there was a debate which is prohibited by the section. Under Sub-section (9) of Section 152 what is to be done at a meeting is laid down. That Sub-section reads:
As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced) the Tahsildar shall read to the Panchayat the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened, the statement of charges and the written statement, if any, of the President or Vice-President in reply to the said charges.
Then follows Sub-sections (10) and (11) which respectively prohibit any debate and also state that the Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the motion or vote thereon. Sub-section (12) provides for a copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon to be forwarded to the Inspector on the termination of the meeting. Reading all these provisions together it seems clear that after the Tahsildar has read out the motion of no-confidence, the statement of the charges and the written statement of the President the matter must be immediately put to vote on the only question whether the motion for the removal of the President is to be supported or not. The Tahsildar has to record the result of the voting and thereafter submit the proceedings to the Inspector. The section does not contemplate speeches of any kind or debate upon the charges or an examination of material in support of the charges or the defence of the President or the like. There is no doubt, therefore, that the record of the proceedings do disclose that there was a debate which contravenes the section.
4. It is not a question of whether any prejudice has been caused to the President that calls for examination here. Where the statute prohibits a particular mode of conduct of a meeting and in violation of that prohibition the meeting is conducted in that way, it should follow that all the subsequent proceedings of the meeting stand vitiated. On that short ground I agree with the contentions put forward by Mr. Sundaralingam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and I hold that the proceedings stand vitiated and the result of these proceedings cannot be acted upon by the Collector by the issue of the notification complained of. The rule is made absolute. It is needless to state that it is open to the authorities to convenes a fresh meeting for the purpose of dealing with the motion of no-confidence.
5. There will be no order as to costs.