HENRY MOBERLY Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not contended before us that the payment of profession tax to the Kodaikanal Municipality will entitle Mr. Moberly to the benefit of Section 60 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, unless the same is legally due. The sole question for decision is therefore whether Mr. Moberly should be deemed to have held the appointment of District and Sessions Judge within the Kodaikanal Municipality during his stay in the limits thereof from April 30th to July 1st, 1911.

(2.) There is no dispute about the facts. Mr. Moberly was the District and Sessions Judge posted to the South Arcot district. He came to Kodaikanal to spend the annual recess, resided there for sixty days, drew his pay there and on various days during that period estimated at fourteen or fifteen in number "did some administrative and quasi-judicial work there." He did no strictly judicial work.

(3.) The point is not altogether free from doubt, but after consideration, I think the requirements of Section 53 of the Madras District Municipalities Act must be held to be fulfilled. The words of the section are holds any one or more of the offices or appointments," and do not in themselves necessarily involve any suggestion of discharging duties connected with the offices or appointments. It can hardly be suggested that during the period in question Mr. Moberly did not hold the office of District and Sessions Judge of South Arcot. The office was certainly not in abeyance: nobody else was holding it, and Mr. Moberly was drawing the salary attached to it. The cases quoted deal with a somewhat different question arising out of the same section, and are of no direct help: but they are clear authority for holding that be did not hold the office in Cuddalore Municipality during the period of his absence therefrom. Where then, did he hold it except at Kodaikanal, the place where he was residing?