Back
1926 Supreme(Mad) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Wallace
R. Subbaroya Goundan
Versus
P. Muthukumaraswami Goundan
Decided On : 29 April, 1926
The finality of the District Judge's decision under Section 57 and the independence of the restoration procedures under Section 56(4) and Section 57.
Headnote:
Sections 56 and 57 - Interpretation - Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920) - 56, 57 - The court discussed the interpretation of Sections 56 and 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920) and highlighted the provisions of Section 56(4) and Section 57(3). The court emphasized that the language of Section 56(4) is definite and clear and must be taken to mean what it says. It also clarified that Section 57(3) does not mean that a member who had failed to attend three consecutive meetings remains a member until and unless there is an adverse decision against him under Section 57. The court emphasized the independence of the restoration procedures under Section 56(4) and Section 57, and the finality of the District Judge's decision under Section 57.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, President of the Taluk Board of Palladam, failed to attend the meetings of the Board for three consecutive months. The Acting President did not report the matter, and the District Judge declared that the petitioner had ceased to be a member.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Judge had jurisdiction to decide that the petitioner ceased to be a member and that his decision was final. The court dismissed the petition with costs.
Issues: Interpretation of Sections 56 and 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920), the effect of non-attendance on membership, and the jurisdiction of the District Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The language of Section 56(4) is definite and clear, and the restoration procedures under Section 56(4) and Section 57 are independent. The District Judge's decision under Section 57 is final unless without jurisdiction or in an irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
Wallace, J.
1. This revision petition raises a question of the interpretation of Sections 56 and 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920) a matter involved in some difficulty because of the loose drafting of the language of the sections.
2. The petitioner, who was the President of the Taluk Board of Palladam, failed for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Board. Section 56 says that in such a case, "subject to the provisions of Section 57," he shall cease to be a member of the Board. The three months expired on 21st September, 1925. Section 56(4) says:
In the case of a person Who has ceased to be a member in consequence of failure to attend meetings, the matter shall be reported by the President at the next meeting of the Local Board which may at that meeting restore such person to office.
3. In the present case the Acting President did not report the matter and therefore the petitioner has not been restored to office under that sub-section. Section 57 permits an application to the District Judge in cases of doubt under Section 56, on which the District Judge shall make an enquiry and determine whether or not the member is disqualified under Section 56, and his decision shall be final. Sub-section (3) of that section says:
Pending such decision the member shall be deemed to be qualified.
4. The petitioner relies upon this Sub-section (3). As I understand his case, it is that, since Section 56 has to be read subject to the provisions of Section 57, the former section does not come into operation by itself, but only in conjunction with and after an enquiry under Section 5.7, and that therefore no member ceases to hold office under Section 56 unless and until the District Judge has been moved and has held an enquiry under Section 57 and has so declared, and that until such declaration he remains by force of Sub-section (3) a member. It is true that in the present case the District Judge has under Section 57 declared that the petitioner has ceased to be a member; but the petitioner pleads that the District Judge has come to that conclusion through an error of law and misinterpretation of the sections, considering himself too strictly bound by the terms of Section 56. It is, however, obvious that it was the primary duty of the District Judge, in an enquiry under Section 57, to determine whether under the terms of Section 56 the petitioner has ceased to hold office. That the District Judge did and has held that he did so cease. His decision under Section 57 is final unless his order was without jurisdiction or in an irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
5. It is contended (1) that as the petitioner was elected President on 5th October, 1925, the Board had in effect restored him to office, and (2) that the District Judge was wrong in holding that he had ceased to hold office because by the force of Section 57(3) he remained a member pending the decision of the Judge and therefore had not ceased to be a member. I do not think that either of these contentions is well founded. As to (1) the Board could restore him as a member only under Section 56(4). That procedure was not adopted. No doubt it seems an anomaly that no member can compel the President to report such a matter to the Board. But that is how the law runs, and if the President does not choose to report the matter to the Board, then the Board under the law has no power to restore him.
6. It is contended that the language of Section 56(4) " who has ceased to be a member" is not happy, and it means something else than "ceases to be a member." The language seems to me definite and clear and must be taken to mean what it says. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of Ramesam, J., in S.K. Devasingamany v. M.R. Sethurathnam Aivar (1924) 87 I C 363
7. As to the second point it seems to me clear that Section 57(3) was not intended to mean that a member who had failed to attend three consecutive meetings nevertheless remains a member until and u
