Skip to content


Chelva Perumal Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of North Arcot - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.604
AppellantChelva Perumal Chettiar
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of North Arcot
Excerpt:
madras district municipalities act (iv of 1884), section 19 governor-in-council's power to remove a councillor. - .....clause iv, of the madras district municipalities act, 1884, gives the governor-in-council power to remove a councillor if his continuance in office is, in the opinion of the governor-in-council, likely to bring the municipal administration into contempt, provided that, when the governor-in-council proposes to take action under this clause, he shall not pass any orders without giving an opportunity of explanation to the councillor concerned. the main point pressed upon us is that in the order of government directing the appellant's removal the government referred to his having been one of those responsible for the mismanagement of municipal affairs in 1899 and that as regards this he was not called on for any explanation.2. it is, however, clear from a perusal of the order of government.....
Judgment:

1. We think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge is right. Section 19, Sub-section (1), Clause IV, of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1884, gives the Governor-in-Council power to remove a Councillor if his continuance in office is, in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council, likely to bring the Municipal administration into contempt, provided that, when the Governor-in-Council proposes to take action under this clause, he shall not pass any orders without giving an opportunity of explanation to the Councillor concerned. The main point pressed upon us is that in the order of Government directing the appellant's removal the Government referred to his having been one of those responsible for the mismanagement of Municipal affairs in 1899 and that as regards this he was not called on for any explanation.

2. It is, however, clear from a perusal of the order of Government that this was a very minor matter compared with the appellant's disgraceful manipulation of the lists of voters in 1894. It is clear that it was for that misconduct that Government resolved to remove him, but before doing so the Government gave him an opportunity for explanation and after 'careful consideration' found his explanation unsatisfactory. In these circumstances we find no reason to interfere.

3. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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