Kulandavelu Pillai and anr. Vs. Patta Muthu Mudaliar - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Chennai |
| May-02-1934 |
| AIR1934Mad651 |
| Kulandavelu Pillai and anr. |
| Patta Muthu Mudaliar |
- madhavan nair, j.1. in this case the question when an application has been made for reinstatement under section 56(4), local poards act, the applicant can afterwards apply under section 57 of the act to the district judge to restore him does not strictly speaking arise for the reason that the application to the board was made subject to the applicant's right of proceeding under section 57.2. exhibit i should be treated as the respondent's application to the board as the other application was on record. even otherwise, i am not satisfied that the exercise by the respondent of his right under section 56, clause (4) would take away his right of applying to the court under section 57 of the act. there is no provision in the act to show that the rights are alternative and not concurrent. the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Madhavan Nair, J.
1. In this case the question when an application has been made for reinstatement under Section 56(4), Local Poards Act, the applicant can afterwards apply under Section 57 of the Act to the District Judge to restore him does not strictly speaking arise for the reason that the application to the Board was made subject to the applicant's right of proceeding under Section 57.
2. Exhibit I should be treated as the respondent's application to the Board as the other application was on record. Even otherwise, I am not satisfied that the exercise by the respondent of his right under Section 56, Clause (4) would take away his right of applying to the Court under Section 57 of the Act. There is no provision in the Act to show that the rights are alternative and not concurrent. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.