Skip to content


Umesh Chandra Goldar Vs. Shamsur Rahman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Cal611,158Ind.Cas.433
AppellantUmesh Chandra Goldar
RespondentShamsur Rahman
Excerpt:
- .....a member of the district board of khulna. the facts are as follows: there was an election for the local board at khulna in 1931. certain members were elected by the union boards of the sub-division and certain members were nominated by the government constituting the khulna sadar local board. then the members of the local board proceeded to elect six members to the khulna district board. this election took place on 11th august 1931. there were seven candidates for election in the district board. defendant 1 was no. 6 and just managed to get elected and the plaintiff was no. 7 who failed to get elected. thereafter he complained to the district magistrate that defendant 1 was not qualified to be elected as a member of the district board and failing there he instituted the present suit.2......
Judgment:

M.C. Ghose, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration that defendant 1 was not qualified to be elected as a member of the District Board of Khulna. The facts are as follows: There was an election for the Local Board at Khulna in 1931. Certain members were elected by the Union Boards of the Sub-Division and certain members were nominated by the Government constituting the Khulna Sadar Local Board. Then the members of the Local Board proceeded to elect six members to the Khulna District Board. This election took place on 11th August 1931. There were seven candidates for election in the District Board. Defendant 1 was No. 6 and just managed to get elected and the plaintiff was No. 7 who failed to get elected. Thereafter he complained to the District Magistrate that defendant 1 was not qualified to be elected as a member of the District Board and failing there he instituted the present suit.

2. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the plaintiff and upon perusing the relevant sections it appears that under Section 13, Bengal Local Self-Government Act 1885, as amended in 1908, a person to be qualified to be a member of a Local Board must have had during the year immediately preceding such election his fixed place of abode within the sub-division for which the Local Board has been established. This means clearly that a person who has a fixed place of abode in the town of Khulna and fulfills the other conditions prescribed by Section 13 will be entitled to be elected. It may be stated that in the Act as originally enacted the relevant words were: 'Area under the authority of such Local Board.' That expression excluded the Municipal town of the area. To bring Municipal town people in, the amendment was made and the relevant words were changed to 'the sub-division for which the Local Board has been established.'

3. It is urged that the Bengal Village Self-Government Act of 1919 has made an alteration in Section 13. It has made no alteration at all. What it has done is that when a local area is declared to be a Union under the Act of 1919, Section 13, Local Self-Government Act of 1885 shall not operate within the said area. Special rules are made in Section 7 of the Act of 119.19 declaring qualifications of members. The residential qualification there is that a person to be qualified to be a member must have a place of residence within the Union Board. It is urged that since the Bengal Act of 1919 it is to be presumed that the residents of the sub-divisional Municipal town have lost their right to be elected to the Local Board. Beading the two Acts together I can see no authority for that proposition. Within area covered by the Union Board, persons will be eligible to the Local Board only if they have a place of residence within the area of the Union Board but that does not exclude persons who live within the sub-divisional town. The defendant in this case it was found by the Courts below has no residence within any Union Board but he has a residence within the town of Khulna and he is otherwise qualified to be a member of the Local Board and as such to be elected to the District Board. In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs.


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