SANTOKCHAND KANAIYALAL JAIN Vs. BHUSAVAL BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate raises the question of the true construction of the provisions of Ss. 19 and 25 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925), hereinafter called the Act, read with S. 3 of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Postponement of General Elections Pending Unification of Municipal Laws) Act, 1964, hereinafter called the Maharashtra Act.

(2.) The facts lie in a small compass. The last general election of the members of the Bhusaval Borough Municipality was held under the provisions of the Act in the year 1960. The first general meeting thereafter was held on February 18, 1961. Under the provisions of S. 25 of the Act, in the normal course the life of the Municipality would have expired on February 17, 1965; but under S. 3 of the Maharashtra Act the term of the Councillors of the Municipality was, by fiction, extended to and inclusive of December 31, 1965. On July 18, 1964, the appellant was elected the President of the Municipality, and on the same day the Municipality passed a resolution to the effect that the term of the office of the President shall be "the residue of the term of office of the Municipality". On the assumption that the term of the President expired on February 17, 1965, the Collector of Jalgaon issued a notice on March 2, 1965, calling for a meeting of the Municipality on March 15, 1965, for electing a new President. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Maharashtra for the issue of an appropriate order setting aside the notice issued by the Collector. There the appellant contended that, as the term of office of the Municipality had been extended by the Maharashtra Act upto December 31, 1965, he was entitled to continue in office as President till that date. A Division Bench of the said High Court rejected that contention and dismissed the petition. Hence the appeal.

(3.) The short question in the appeal is whether the expression "the residue of the Municipality" in the resolution of the Municipality dated July 18, 1964, means the residue of the Municipality that would have been if the Maharashtra Act had not been passed or whether it should be interpreted in the context of the extended term provided by the Maharashtra Act.