Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: two consecutive term in N. Chandrappa vs Registrar on 2 November, 1989Matching Fragments
2. The petitioner is a Lecturer in J.S.S. College, Mysore. He was elected to the Academic Council of the Mysore University for the period 1983-86. Thereafter, he came to be elected for the second term for the period 1986-89. His term of office as a Member of the Academic Council of the Mysore University comes to an end by the 31st of December 1989. Therefore, the said office has to be filled up for the period commencing on the end of December 1989. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner has held the office as a Member of the Academic Council on two consecutive terms. His apprehension is that he is likely to be held ineligible to contest the election, for the third time, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act. Therefore, he has sought for a declaration to the effect that the operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act is not retrospective.
3. Section 33A of the Act reads thus:
"33A - Certain restriction on the holding of office by nominated and elected members of the authorities:
1) Any member nominated to any of the authorities specified in Section 20 shall hold office during the pleasure of the person or authority nominating him;
2) No person nominated or elected to any of the authorities specified in Section 20 shall hold office for more than two consecutive terms in such authority."
4. The contention of the petitioner Is that the period of office held by him or by any other person of any one of the offices mentioned in Section 20 of the Act consecutively for a period of two terms prior to the coming Into force of Karnataka Act No. 23/1986 shall not be and cannot be taken into account for the purpose of applying Sub-section (2) of Section 33-A of the Act and if it is done so, it would amount to giving effect to the provision of Section 33A(2) of the Act retrospectively because, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the term or terms of office held after the coming into force of Sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act alone will have to be taken into account and not the term or terms of office held prior to the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 23/1986.
5. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no retrospectivity involved in the application of Sub-section (2) of Section 33-A of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 33-A of the Act, on the date it becomes relevant for applying it, if it is found that as on that day if a person has held the offices mentioned in Section 20 of the Act consecutively for two terms, even though it had taken place prior to the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 23/1986, he will not be eligible either to be nominated or elected for another term in continuation of the terms of office held by him. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, Section 33-A of the Act which has come into force on 14-5-1986 will be Inoperative for a period of 6 years. No such interpretation should be placed on a statute which makes a provision of the Act inoperative or redundant. As long as the facts required for applying Sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act are existing, whether those facts had taken place prior to the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 23/1986 or subsequent thereto, it makes no difference and they are to be taken into account. There is no application of the Section with retrospective effect. It is not a penal provision. The Section is applied as on and from the date it has come into force. If the facts which are necessary for applying it are existing as on today or on the date the Act came into force, the provision is attracted.