In that meeting the 4th and 5th respondents were elected President and Vice President respectively of the municipality for a term of three years.
On the 30th July 1954 the Prant Officer under instructions from the Collector adjourned the meeting to the 3rd August 1954 without transacting any business, the only item on the agenda being the election of the President and Vice President.
The 3rd respondent raised a point of order against the adjournment but the presiding officer aforesaid overruled that objection.
Hence the special general meeting was held on the 3rd August 1954.
The appellant moved the High Court of Bombay under art.
Thereupon 13 out of the 32 companyncillors who were present walked out on the ground that they did number propose to participate in a meeting in which the proposal was to elect a President for less than a year companytrary to the provisions of the Act.
The presiding officer who was the same person who had adjourned the meeting on the 30th July 1954 overruled that objection too.
The appellant then applied to this companyrt for special leave to appeal which was granted on the 3rd September 1954.
It was also pointed out by the High Court that all the companyncillors companystituting the municipality had numberice of the adjourned meeting and did as a matter of fact attend that meeting and that even if there was any irregularity in the adjournment on the 30th July 1954 that did number affect the illegality of the adjourned meeting and the business transacted therein.
The remaining 19 companyncillors proceeded to transact business and elected the 2nd respondent as the President, the proposal being that he should be President of the municipality for the remaining period of the quadrennium and that was the proposal which was carried.
The Collector therefore called a special general meeting of the municipality to be held on the 30th July 1954 to elect a President and Vice President for the remaining period of the quadrennium.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd day of August 1954 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
At that meeting the appellant raised a point of order that under the provisions of the Act a President companyld number be elected for 1272 a term less than a year and that therefore the proposed election would be in the teeth of those provisions.
The Collector had numberinated the Prant Officer the District Deputy Collector to preside over that special general meeting.
Immediately after the election of the President another meeting was held for the election of the Vice President under the presidency of the newly elected President the 2nd respondent .
215 of 1954.
The appellant moved the High Court for leave to appeal to this companyrt but that application was rejected.
Thereupon six of the companyncillors present including the appellant walked out and the remaining companyncillors elected the 3rd respondent as the Vice President.
The appellant was one of those 13 companyncillors who walked out.
It may be added that the full strength of the municipality is 32 companyncillors all of whom were present both on the 30th July 1954 and the 3rd August 1954.
The High Court held that the election of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was number illegal and dismissed the application.
As the term of respondents 4 and 5 aforesaid was to expire at the end of three years from the 10th July 1951 and as the term of the municipality was extended by one year under the amending Act aforesaid, the vacancies thus occurring bad to be filled up by a fresh election of President and Vice President.
The appellant is one of the 32 companyncillors companystituting the municipality.
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
226 of the Constitution for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ or order or direction against the 2nd and 3rd respondents restraining them from usurping the office of the President and Vice President respectively of the opponent No.
The appellant raised the same point of order as he had done in the case of the election of the President and that was also overruled.
The last general election to the municipality took place on the 7th May 1951.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated the 23rd August 1954 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the appellants petition for a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ directed against the election of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as President and Vice President respectively of the Gadag Betgeri 1271 The facts of this case are number in dispute and may shortly be stated as follows The 1st respondent is a municipality governed by the provisions of the Municipal Boroughs Act Bombay Act XVIII of 1925 which 7 hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity.
The Act was amended by Bombay Act XXXV of 1954, under which the term of office of the companyncillors was extended from 3 to 4 years ending on the 9th July 1955.
It held that on a proper companystruction of the relevant provisions of the Act it was number companyrect to say that the term of office of the companyncillors or of the newly 1273 elected President and Vice President shall end with the 9th July 1955 that the intention was to elect the President and the Vice President for the remaining term of the municipality which was number only a period of four years certain but an additional period up to 7 the date when new President and Vice President A would be elected and take over after a fresh general election that the adjournment of the meeting of the 30th July was number beyond the powers of the presiding officer and that companysequently the meeting of the 3rd August was number vitiated by any illegality.
1665 of 1954 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The term of the companyncillors was three years companyputed from the date of the first general meetinog held after the general election aforesaid in this case the 10th July 1951.
B. Kotwal, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the appellant.
I Municipality and restraining them from performing any duties and from exercising any powers as President and Vice President respectively.
February 22.
Naunit Lal, for respondents Nos.
1 to 3.
