S K MARIYA PILLAI Vs. MUTHUVELU PANDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question. The petitioners before us are two members of the, Taluk Board of Tirutturaippundi There was, a meeting of the Board on the 6 September 1923, and they attended it. On the 19 September there was another meeting. They failed to attend it. On the 17th October there was a meeting and the petitioners were again absent. In November no meeting was convened. On the l9 December there was a meeting at which they failed to be present. On the 17 January 1924, a meeting was convened , and the petitioners attended it. The question that we have to decide is : Did the petitioners cease to hold office by reason of the fact that they failed for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Local Board ?

(2.) Section 56(1)(h), so far as it is relevant to the present point, reads thus: Subject to the provisions of Section 57, a member of a Local Board shall cease to hold his office, if he (h) fails for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Local Board.

(3.) The words are " three consecutive months," not three consecutive meetings." The first default occurred on the 19 September 1923. Computing three months from that date, it is obvious that the petitioners failed for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Board. That the period is to be computed from the date of the first default is settled by Kershaw V/s. Mayor, etc. of Shoreditch [1906] 22 T.L.R. 302.