Judgment :- Petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that he is disqualified to contest the election to the Director Board in view of Clause 34 of the Byelaws of the 3rd respondent Society. Clause 34 provides that a member who has been a Director in the Director Board for two consecutive terms cannot contest for another term without the specific permission granted by the Deputy Registrar. Contention of the petitioner is that he is not disqualified under the clause as it cannot be held that he was a member of the Director Board consecutively for two periods as she Administrator took charge on 5-7-1988 and Continued to be so till 22-10-1988. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was a Director of the Society consecutively for two terms as the Administrator was controlling the affairs of the Society during an interregnum. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that he was a member of the Director Board from 29-12-1985 to 30-6-1988, that the Administrator took charge on 5-7-1988 and continued to be so till 22-10-1988 and that thereafter the petitioner again became a Director on 28-10-1988 and was in office till 10-2-1992 and so it cannot be said that he held the office of the Director for two consecutive periods. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Administrator being in charge of the affairs of the Society in between the two periods in which the petitioner was the Director, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner was continuously holding the office. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the period in which UieAdjninisJralQrwasin charge-has to be totally ignored and in that view of the matter it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner is disqualified as per Clause 34 of the Bye-laws. 4. To resolve the controversy, we have to consider whether the petitioner continued as the Director of the Society for two consecutive terms. 4. To resolve the controversy, we have to consider whether the petitioner continued as the Director of the Society for two consecutive terms. In the Legal Theasaurus by William C. Burton, the meaning of the word "consecutive" is given as hereunder: "chronological, coming after, connected, consequent, continens, continual, continuing, continuous, cumulative, ensuing, following in a scries, in a line, in a row, in order, in regular order., in sequence, in turn, in unbroken sequence, in uninterrupted succession, nonstop, one after another, one after the other, perennial, recurrent, repeated, repetitive, running, sequent, sequential, serial, serialised, seriate, seriatim, steady, subsequent, succeeding, successive, unbroken, uninterrupted, uninterrupted in course, unremitting." In the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, the word "consecutive" is defined thus: "following in regular order or one after another; expressing consequence." In Webster's Encyclopedia of Dictionaries, New American Edition, the word is defined as follows: "following one another in unbroken order; successive; resulting; expressing consequence." Thus, as the words "consecutive" can only mean "in unbroken sequence or uninterrupted succession" it is not possible to accept the contention of the Government Pleader that the period in which the Administrator was in control of the Society has to be ignored and the petitioner was the Director of the Society for two consecutive periods. 5. In view of the interregnum in which the Administrator looked after the affairs of the Society, it can never be held that the petitioner was the D irector of the Board for two consecutive terms. In that view of the ma tier, it cannot be said that the petitioner's nomination was rightly rejected in accordance with Clause 34 of the Bye-laws. The rejection of the nomination of the petitioner cannot be sustained legally. Rejection of the nomination is hereby quashed. The second respondent is directed to accept petitioner's nomination and allow him to contest the election. The Original Petition stands allowed. No costs.