LAWS(KER)-1954-9-7

GOVINDANKUTTY MENON Vs. BALAKRISHNA MARAR

Decided On September 07, 1954
GOVINDANKUTTY MENON Appellant
V/S
BALAKRISHNA MARAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the election of the first respondent to the Cochin Devaswom Board constituted under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the H.R.I, Act, 1950) on the ground that he was not eligible for election as a member of the Board under S.66(iii) of that enactment. The first prayer in the petition is:

(2.) S.66(iii) provides that a person shall not be eligible for election if he is an office holder of a local authority and the 1st respondent was, it is admitted, the Chairman of the Trichur Municipality on 4.6.1954, the date of his nomination and election under the rules in schedule II to the Act and till 12.6.1954 when his resignation by his letter dated 8.6.1954 was accepted by the Municipality. The term "local authority" is defined in S.2(20) of the Travancore Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, as meaning:-

(3.) The 1st respondent's contention was not that "office holders" were not disqualified but that the term "office holder" in S.66(iii) of the H.R.I. Act, 1950, means only an 'officer' and as the Chairman is not an officer of a Municipality under the Cochin Municipal Act, XVIII of 1113 the term "office holder" does not occur in that enactment but one of the Municipal Authorities specified in S.6 of that Act he cannot be considered as disqualified under S.66(iii) of the H.R.I. Act, 1950. As to what exactly is meant by the term "office holder" in S.66(iii) of the H.R.I. Act, 1950, has to be resolved with reference to the provisions of that Act itself. S.87(i) of the Act refers not merely to office holders but also officers and servants and on going through the various sections of the Act where the terms occur we are satisfied that though the words 'officer' and 'servant' have been created an interchangeable or as denoting two gradations in the official hierarchy, the word 'office holder' has been kept distinct and separate by the legislature as denoting something superior to the officers and servants of the Board and of the institutions under its control or management; something quite different from an employee serving under a contract of employment.