C K RAMASWAMI GOUNDAN Vs. MUTHU VELAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ptitions arise in connection with the election of the president of the Taluk Board of Gobichettypalayam under the new Madras Local Boards Act, XIV of 1920. Petitioner before us, Mr. Ramaswami Gounder and one of the respondents Mr. Venkatesa Aiyar were the rival candidates for the place. In the election on the 15 of March last, the date fixed for it, Mr. Gounder was declared duly elected. Thereupon an application O.P. No. 51 of 22 was made to the District Judge of Coimbatore. under Section 57 of the Act to have it declared that Mr. Gounder was disqualified as a member under Section 55 Clause (2), (5) and therefore unfit to be a President under Section 15 Clause (1). On this petition the District Judge gave a declaration that Mr. Gounder was disqualified for appointment as a member. It may be mentioned that the date fixed for the new Taluk Board to come into existence in the notification under Rule 9 of the Transitory rules was the 1 of March; the elections and nominations were over by the 21 of February on which date the president of the District Board, Coimbatore, had nominated Mr. Gounder as a member of the new Board to take effect from the 1 of March. It is this nomination that the District Judge has held to be bad. Civil Revision Petition No. 342 of 1922 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1870 of 1922 are against the order in O.P. No. 51.

(2.) About the same time, two other members of the new board filed O.P. No. 47 of 1922 making a number of allegations of corruption, fraud and other election offences against Mr. Gounder and prayed for an enquiry and asked that his election as President might be declared void and a re-election ordered. This petition was filed under the rules framed by the Government of Madras under Section 199 of the Act for the trial of election petitions and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, No. 650 dated 14 June 1921. The District Judge heard this petition and O.P.No. 51 together and without holding an enquiry on evidence held that on his finding in O.P. No. 5I that Mr. Gounder was "ineligible to be a member of the reconstituted Taluk Board, his election to the Presidentship of that body became illegal" and made a declaration to that effect purporting to act under Rule 11(c) of the rules. He then proceeded to declare Mr. Iyer to have been duly elected as president without any opportunity being given to Mr. Gounder or to any others to attack his election on grounds of corruption etc., which had been alleged by Mr. Gounder in his written statement. Civil Revision Petition No. 341 of 1922 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1869 of 1922 are filed against these orders.

(3.) There can be no doubt that the orders of the District Judge are wrong. The argument is put thus by him. Under Rule 10 of the Transitory Rules Mr. Gounder continued as President till the new president was elected and took charge; that must be after the 15 of March, the date of the election. Mr. Gounder must therefore be taken to have continued as a member of the Board as no one can be a President without being a member and that as Section 55 Clause 2(5) says "a person who is already a member of the local board whose term of office will not expire before his fresh election or appointment can take effect is disqualified for election or appointment." Mr. Gounder's nomination or appointment as member to take effect on the 1st of March was therefore illegal. The District Judge says, he ceased to be a member and his election as President was bad. Under what rule and when he ceased to be a member the Judge does not say. If the nomination is bad because Mr. Gounder was already a member he must be taken to have continued as a member under his original right unless under same rule or other his membership ceased. Loss of Presidentship does not carry with it loss of membership. No rule has been pointed out to us as having that effect, unless Rule 10 Clause (2) of the Transitory rules is applied in which case his membership ceased on the 1 of March and his nomination was not obnoxious to Section 55 Clause (2)(5).