Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-16-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Bom206; 1976MhLJ229
..... (cit. supra) the phraseology 'absented himself' cannot be equated with 'remained absent' or 'was not present'. if the legislature wanted that mere absence or non-presence should amount to disqualification, then, it could have used such a phraseology. if the construction as put up by the learned counsel for the municipal ..... councillor is prevented from attending the meetings for the reasons beyond his control. it is not possible for us to put up such a construction on the provisions of section 36 of the act.9. it cannot be forgotten that section 36 of the act deals with the disqualification. normally a ..... from attending the meetings. in support of this proposition shri vaidya has relied upon the decisions of the supreme court in k. ananda nambiar v. state of punjab, : 1966crilj586 and burn and co. v. their employees, : (1957)illj226sc . in our opinion, there is no substance in these contentions.6 ..... question. in k. ananda nambiar v. state of punjab, : 1966crilj586 (cit. supra) the supreme court had an occasion to consider the question as to whether a member of the parliament or the legislature has a right to participate in the business of the legislature to which he belongs, even if he ..... from all the meetings of the standing committee during two consecutive months. the expression used is not 'absent' or 'remained absent', but the legislature has used the words 'absents himself'.4. this phraseology used in this very section came for consideration before the nagpur high court in wamanrao .....Tag this Judgment!