R SUBBAROYA GOUNDAN Vs. PMUTHUKUMARASWAMI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises a question of the interpretation of Secs.56 and 57 of the Madras Local Boards Act(XIV of 1920) a matter involved in some difficulty because of the loose drafting of the language of the sections.

(2.) The petitioner, who was the President of the Taluk Board of Palladam, failed for three consecutive months to attend the meetings of the Board. Section 56 says that in such a case, "subject to the provisions of Section 57," he shall cease to be a member of the Board. The three months expired on 21 September, 1925. Section 56(4) says: In the case of a person Who has ceased to be a member in consequence of failure to attend meetings, the matter shall be reported by the President at the next meeting of the Local Board which may at that meeting restore such person to office.

(3.) In the present case the Acting President did not report the matter and therefore the petitioner has not been restored to office under that sub-section. Section 57 permits an application to the District Judge in cases of doubt under Section 56, on which the District Judge shall make an enquiry and determine whether or not the member is disqualified under Section 56, and his decision shall be final. Sub-section (3) of that section says: Pending such decision the member shall be deemed to be qualified.