GOVINDA PANICKER Vs. K. BALAKRISHNA MARAR AND ANOTHER

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), Travancore -Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, as meaning:

(3.) A further contention of the 1st respondent on this aspect of the case was that nothing should be termed an "office" unless there is a remuneration attached to it and as the chairmanship of the Trichur Municipality carried no remuneration but only a conveyance allowance he cannot be deemed to be a holder of an office within the meaning of the H.R.I. Act, 1950. We see no warrant for this contention. An office without fees or perquisites will nonetheless be an office and in cases like the present the only test will be whether the particular office -honorary or lucrative -is the creature of a statute and is of a public nature.