Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Tiruvengada Ayyangar vs Rangayyangar And Ors. on 15 September, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 6 Mad 114
Bench: C A Turner, Kt., Kindersley


JUDGMENT

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.

1. The 9th section of the Act, declaring the office of a member of a committee appointed under the Act to be tenable for life if in the meantime he should not be guilty of misconduct or become unfit to exercise the duties of his office, was intended to create a right in favour of such member and not to deprive him of the liberty of retiring from office. We hold that the appellant in Civil Revision Petition 108 of 1882 had the same liberty to resign his office as he would have had to decline election. The office was then vacant. It is said that due notice was given of the vacancy and an election was held; but the voters were not numerous, because the persons entitled to be placed on the register had not taken the steps it was incumbent on them to take to qualify themselves. This would not invalidate the election. Unless, on other grounds, the election of Laksmi Narasayya is invalid, the Judge has no power to act, and in that case he can only make an appointment or give orders that an appointment should be made. The appeal is allowed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

72 queries in 0.336 seconds.