LAWS(PVC)-1925-9-157

D A KANDASAMI CHETTIAR Vs. GFFFOULKES

Decided On September 24, 1925
D A KANDASAMI CHETTIAR Appellant
V/S
GFFFOULKES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Salem refusing to set aside the election of the President of the District Board of Salem held on 29 July 1924. The first ground alleged in the petition and repeated before me here is that five of the voters, namely, Arunachalla Goundan ; 2. Bommanna Chetty ; 3. Rahu ; 4. Chinappa Goundan ; and 5. "Vasudeva Reddi have ceased to hold their office as members of the District Board by reason of their non-attendance at the meetings of the District Board for three consecutive months. Four of these were elected and one was nominated. Though all the five were restored to their office by a resolution of the Board under Section 56(4) of the Act, it it said (1) that they cannot exercise the functions of the members of a Board at the meeting at which they were restored ; (2) that they ought to take a fresh oath of allegiance and until a fresh oath of allegiance was taken, they cannot exercise the functions of members of the District Board and in this ease no such fresh oath or allegiance was taken.

(2.) The District Judge was of opinion that these members were not disqualified and their membership did not cease as they were not absent for three consecutive meetings. It appears that four of them were absent from one meeting and the fifth absent from two consecutive meetings, but in two of the three months preceding the meeting of the 29 July, the Board had not met at all, infringing Rule 1 of the rules regulating the proceedings of Local Board (Sch. II of the Act). It is unnecessary to consider this question as the members were all restored to the office and as I have come to the conclusion that the other objections against their membership cannot stand. If, at the meeting of the 29 July, they were first restored to membership and afterwards the Board proceeded to the election of the President, I do not see any thing irregular or illegal in this procedure. Therefore, there is no substance in the first ground.

(3.) The second ground is that a fresh oath of allegiance must be taken. The effect of the restoration of a member, though it may not be retrospective as to make him a member of the Board during the preceding three months or so as to restore to him any privileges besides the mere membership such as presidentship or vice- president ship which he lost along with the membership, as was held by me n Devasign money V/s. Sethuratna Iyer A.I.R. 925 Mad. 1034, is certainly to restore him to the office of membership for the balance of the period for which he was originally elected or nominated. It is not that he becomes & new member getting a fresh full period of office from the date of the restoration. Whenever there is a fresh election or fresh nomination no doubt a fresh oath of allegiance ought to be taken. But in the case of a restored member he is restored to his. former membership, that is, the membership he previously had by election or by nomination completed by the oath of allegiance which he had previously taken. If it be said that he does not get the benefit of the prior election or nomination and the oath which he had taken, it would be creating a fourth class of members not contemplated by the Act. The Act contemplated only ex officio members, elected members and nominated members. It is clear, therefore, that the restoration makes him the elected or nominated member he previously was. If so, he gets also the benefit of the previous oath of allegiance. I do not think, therefore, there is any substance even in the second ground. The result is, that, so far as these five voters are concerned, the petition fails.