Directory consultation requirement upheld, so non-compliance did not invalidate the Magistrate's appointment.

Section 256 of the Constitution Act was construed as requiring consultation with the District Magistrate of the district where the person was then working, or with the Chief Presidency Magistrate if he was working under him. On the facts, the borrowed Magistrate's appointment was not shown to have been made without the appropriate consultation, so the challenge failed. The provision was also treated as directory rather than mandatory, meaning that any non-compliance would not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise valid appointment unless the statute expressly made invalidity the consequence. The appointment was therefore upheld and the order under challenge remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement of consultation under Section 256 of the Constitution Act, in relation to the grant of magisterial powers, was complied with and, if not, whether non-compliance would render the appointment invalid.

Analysis: The section was construed as requiring consultation with the District Magistrate of the district where the person concerned was working at the time the recommendation was made, or with the Chief Presidency Magistrate if he was then working under him. On the facts, the Magistrate had been borrowed from another province and there was nothing to show that the appropriate consultation had not taken place. The provision was further held to be directory rather than mandatory, so that a failure to observe it would not, by itself, make an otherwise valid appointment ineffective or inoperative.

Conclusion: The consultation requirement was complied with and, in any event, Section 256 was directory. The challenge to the Magistrate's appointment failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was unsuccessful and the order under challenge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory direction for consultation is directory and not mandatory, non-compliance does not invalidate an appointment otherwise regularly and validly made unless prejudice or an express consequence of invalidity is shown.

---