Skip to content


S.P. Periaswami Pillai Vs. the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 9063 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad667; (1951)IMLJ83
ActsMadras Local Boards Act, 1920 - Sections 56(1) and 56(4)
AppellantS.P. Periaswami Pillai
RespondentThe Executive Officer, Panchayat Board
Advocates:B.V. Ramanarasu, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 1. this is art application to quash the order of the district judge, west tanjore, holding that the petitioner has ceased to hold his office as a member of the panchayat board of tiruvadi under section 56 (1) (h), madras local boards act, that is to say, on the ground that he had failed to attend the meetings of the board for a period of three consecutive months......board for a period of three consecutive months, he was present during those months at some of its urgent meetings and therefore it could not be said that he had absented himself from the meetings of the board for three consecutive months. this contention cannot prevail in view of the explanation to section 56 (1) (h) which runs as follows :'explanation : a meeting held under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of schedule ii or rule 4 of that schedule shall not be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of this clause.'the urgent meetings which the petitioner is alleged to have attended are meetings which fall under sub-rule (2) of rule 3. they should therefore be deemed not to be meetings within the meaning of clause (h) and must therefore be completely left out of account in reckoning the.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This is art application to quash the order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, holding that the petitioner has ceased to hold his office as a member of the Panchayat Board of Tiruvadi under Section 56 (1) (h), Madras Local Boards Act, that is to say, on the ground that he had failed to attend the meetings of the Board for a period of three consecutive months. The petitioner's counsel first and most pressed upon us a ground which does not appear to have been taken in the lower Court, namely, that though he did absent himself from the ordinary meetings of the Local Board for a period of three consecutive months, he was present during those months at some of its urgent meetings and therefore it could not be said that he had absented himself from the meetings of the Board for three consecutive months. This contention cannot prevail in view of the explanation to Section 56 (1) (h) which runs as follows :

'Explanation : A meeting held under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Schedule II or Rule 4 of that schedule shall not be deemed to be a meeting within the meaning of this clause.'

The urgent meetings which the petitioner is alleged to have attended are meetings which fall under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. They should therefore be deemed not to be meetings within the meaning of Clause (h) and must therefore be completely left out of account in reckoning the absence of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that though these meetings should not be taken into account, if he had absented himself from them, they could be taken into account if he were present at such meetings. There is neither logic nor principle to support this argument . The explanation completely excludes urgent meetings from a consideration of the question which arises under Clause (h).

2. The second contention was that the petitioner attended meetings of the Board after he had ceased to hold office and therefore he should be deemed to have been restored under Section 56 (4) of the Act. There is obviously no substance in this contention, because a person who ceased to be a member of the Board can be restored only by a resolution of the Board at a meeting held after an application by such person for restoration.

3. The application is therefore dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //