Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J. -

The appellant, a Councillor of the Corporation of Madras, applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition forbidding the Council of the Corporation of Madras from considering at its meeting to be held on 15th November, 1962, or at any subsequent meeting, the subject relating to the restoration of eight members of the Corporation who had lost their office by failing to attend the meeting of the Council for three consecutive months. That application has been rejected by Veeraswami, J., and the correctness of that decision forms the subject-matter of this appeal.

Under rule 2 of Schedule II of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919, the Council of the Corporation of Madras, in whom the Municipal government of the city is vested, is required to meet in the municipal office for the transaction of business at least once in every month. By virtue of the powers vested in the Council under section 31 of the Act, Regulations have been made regarding the proceedings of the Council. Rule 9 of the Regulations prescribes that at least two ordinary meetings of the Council shall be ordinarily held on the first and third Tuesdays every month.

Under section 53(1)(i) of the Act:-

"a Councillor shall cease to hold office as such, if he fails to attend the meeting of the Council for a period of three consecutive months beginning from the date of the commencement of his term of office or of the last meeting he attended as the case may be".

This prohibition is made subject to section 54 which vests jurisdiction in the Chief Justice of the Court of Small Causes at Madras, to decide whether the Councillor has become disqualified for the office by reason of the provisions of section 53.

It is plain from the terms of section 53 (1) (i) that the period of absence which would result in the forfeiture of his office by a Councillor is to be calculated from the date of the meeting he last attended. This was the construction placed on an analogous provision in Subbaroya Goundan v. Muthukumaraswami Goundan1 and Thiruppuliswamy v. Manickam2. It is also clear from the terms of the section extracted above that no formal act of any authority is necessary to put an end to the membership of a Councillor who had absented himself for three consecutive months from the date when he last attended a meeting of the Council. The cessation of membership is automatic on such absence. The Act, however, makes provision for restoration of the member who lost his office by reason of the provision contained in section 53 (1) (i). That provision is contained in sub-section (4) of section 53 which says:

"In the case of a person who has ceased to be a Councillor in consequence of failure to attend meetings the matter shall be reported by the Commissioner at the next ordinary meeting and the Council may at that meeting restore such person to office."

There were not less than two meetings of the Corporation every month till the end of July, 1962. On 16th August, 1962, there was an ordinary meeting of the Council over which the present Mayor Sri Kuchelar presided. Shortly thereafter, Sri Kuchelar participated in an illegal demonstration against the Government which resulted in his being convicted under section 7 (9) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. No further meeting of the Corporation Council was convened in the month of August. Nor was there any meeting for the entire month of September. On being apprised by the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras of the stalemate in regard to the civil administration of the City, the Government passed an order in exercise of its powers under section 42 of the Act directing the Commissioner of the Corporation to arrange for the convening of a meeting of the Council for the 26th October, 1962, and on such other subsequent days as the Council might decide for the purpose of disposing of the urgent subjects b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document