RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that he is disqualified to contest the election to the Director Board in view of Clause.34 of the Bye laws of the 3rd respondent Society. Clause.34 provides that a member who has been a Director in the Director Board for two consecutive terms cannot contest for another term without the specific permission granted by the Deputy Registrar. Contention of the petitioner is that he is not disqualified under the clause as it cannot be held that he was a member of the Director Board consecutively for two periods as the Administrator took charge on 5-7-1988 and continued to be so till 22-10-1988.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was a Director of the Society consecutively for two terms as the Administrator was controlling the affairs of the Society during an interregnum.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that he was a member of the Director Board from 29-12-1985 to 30-6-1988, that the Administrator took charge on 5-7-1988 and continued to be so till 22-10-1988 and that thereafter the petitioner again became a Director on 28-10-1988 and was in office till 10-2-1992 and so it cannot be Said that he held the office of the Director for two consecutive periods. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Administrator being in charge of the affairs of the Society in between the two periods in which the petitioner was the Director, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner was continuously holding the office. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the period in which the Administrator was in charge has to be totally ignored and in that view of the matter it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner is disqualified as per Clause.34 of the Bye laws.