Skip to content


Divi Dwarkacharyulu Vs. Kothapalli Srikrishnan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in87Ind.Cas.825
AppellantDivi Dwarkacharyulu
RespondentKothapalli Srikrishnan
Excerpt:
madras local boards act (xiv of 1920), as amended by madras act, ii of 1922, schedule x, rule 15, sub-clause (8) - local board--oath of allegiance, failure of members to take--election of president by such members, validity of--meeting for election of president--adjournment--election at adjourned meeting, legality of. - .....by the district court of kistna setting aside the election of the petitioner as president of a union board.2. the two grounds on which the learned district judge set aside the election are (1) that the members of the union board had not taken their oaths of allegiance before the alleged election was held and (2) that the meeting at which the election of the president took place was a meeting not held on the day and at the time fixed' by the president of the taluk board as required by sub-clause (3) of rule 15 of the transitory provisions contained in schedule x of the local boards act, but on subsequent date to which the meeting originally called was adjourned by the president of the meeting because there was no quorum present on the first occasion. i think the decision of the.....
Judgment:

Srinivasa Iyengar, J.

1. In this petition, I am asked to revise an order passed by the District Court of Kistna setting aside the election of the petitioner as President of a Union Board.

2. The two grounds on which the learned District Judge set aside the election are (1) that the members of the Union Board had not taken their oaths of allegiance before the alleged election was held and (2) that the meeting at which the election of the President took place was a meeting not held on the day and at the time fixed' by the President of the Taluk Board as required by Sub-clause (3) of Rule 15 of the Transitory Provisions contained in Schedule X of the Local Boards Act, but on subsequent date to which the meeting originally called was adjourned by the President of the meeting because there was no quorum present on the first occasion. I think the decision of the learned District Judge on both these points was correct.

3. As regards the first contention, the Act required that the oath should be taken by every member before he takes his seat ' That undoubtedly means before he enters upon the rights and duties of his office As the right to elect a President is part of the rights which accrue to him only as a member of the Union Board and as the terms of the section prevent him from taking his seat, that is to say, from exercising any rights of his office before he takes his oath of allegiance, it is clear that the election of a President by members who had not so taken their oaths of allegiance was an election not by the members of the Union Board at all but by some irresponsible body.

4. With regard to the second question, if the words of the rule were that a meeting shall be called by the Taluk Board President for the purpose of the election of the President of the Union Board and that the President of the Union Board shall be elected at such meeting, then it may be open to the contention that though there was no quorum for the meeting originally called by the Taluq Board President, the adjourned meeting was really a continuation of the same meeting and that, therefore, the election of the President was at such meeting. But the words of the rule are that the meeting shall be held on a day and at a time fixed by the President of the Taluq Board for the election of the President to the Union Board. Therefore, the power to elect a President is conferred only on a meeting called by the President on the date and at the time fixed by him. From the evidence it is clear that the meeting at which the election took place was not such a meeting.

5. The petition, therefore, fails on both the grounds. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider the question whether if the decision of the lower Court on both these grounds was wrong, I have or have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order made by him.

6. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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