Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.51 seconds)Section 91 in Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Somasekharan Nair vs C.K.Divakaran Pillai on 8 March, 2010
14. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision does not
indicate that the 2nd respondent was entitled to any benefit under
the above provision. It is neither a contribution work in the
Municipality for the benefit of the community nor is it as a
representative of the community or of as Councillor. The
judgment in Somasekharan Nair v. Divakaran Pillai (2010 (2)
KLT 1022) which has been relied upon by the Commission has no
application to the facts of the present case. That was a case with
reference to a contract with the local authority on behalf of a
beneficiary committee. That is not the situation here. The ad hoc
Committee is not the beneficiary committee in terms of the
statutory provisions. It is an independent body and has ventured
into a commercial contract in terms of agreement dated
31/1/2012 and admittedly the 2nd respondent is the President of
the said ad hoc Committee. It is however pointed out that the
disqualification if any is co-terminus with the term of office of the
Committee and since the period of Committee had already
expired, no useful purpose will be served in agitating the issue.
1