J T MATHIAS Vs. A M BANGALORIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art.226, a candidate for the office of the Mayor of the Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called the Corporation has prayed fox the following relief: To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to fix the date for the adjourned meeting for holding of election of Mayor and Dy Mayor for the Corporation forthwith and to proceed with election from the stage it was interrupted by the illegal adjournment made by respondent 1 and to complete the election in accordance with law.

(2.) The events leading up to the petition are these,: Respondent 1 is the out-going Mayor of the Corporation. Respondent 2 is the Secreary of the Corporation. The Corporation was constituted and is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, hereinafter cabled the Act. In the month of May, 1972, there was general election to the Corporation to elect its Councillors. After that election, the first meeting of the Corporation was held on 3rd June, 1972 in which the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor were elected. In the same mont in 1973, there was another meeting in which respondent 1 was elected as the Mayor. Fop electing the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the year 1974-75, respondent 1, called a meeting of the Corporation on 3rd June, 1974. In accordance with the notice of the said meeting, the petitioner filed his nomination paper for the office of the Mayor. Respondent 4 was a rival candidate for the said office. Likewise, respondents 5 and 6 were rival candidates for the office of the Deputy Mayor. The meeting presided over by the Mayor commenced at 3-00 p.m. evidently to take ballot voting. Thus far the Mayor was right; but what happened next is a little disturbing. Before the voting took place, respondent 7 whq is one of the Councillors raised a point of order. His point was that the notice of the meeting was defective as it did not specify the term of office of the Mayor and the Dy Mayor. The Mayor, I am told, after some discussion, accepted the point of order and adjourned the meeting sine die. The events that followed immediately thereafter are in dispute. It appears that there was a lot of commotion follqwed by holding 'Dharana' by the followers of the petitioner, both in the Corporation hall and also before the residence of the Mayor; but the fact remains that the Mayor has not yet called another meeting. So, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 24th June 1974, for a writ to compel respondent 1 to take steps to hold the election.

(3.) It is admitted on all hands, that respondent 1 has to call a meeting of the Corporation for electing the Mayor and Dy Mayor for the year 1974-75. But he has filed his objections opposing the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Firstly he has stated that the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus as there is an alternate remedy available to him under S.448 of the Act. Secondly, he has sought to justify his action in adjourning the meeting sine die. He has stated that the point of order raised by respondent 7 was relevant; that the notice of the meeting, without specifying the term of the Mayor was defective, and that he has accepted the point of order in good faith and adjourned the meeting. He has also stated that his decision was final and could not be questioned in Court of Law. He has further stated that he could not convene a fresh meeting to elect the Mayor and Dy Mayor as some of the Councillors started 'Dharapa in the Corporation meeting hall and also before his house and further caused disappearance of the papers pertaining to the election and attempted to assault the Municipal Secretary. Lastly he has stated: In view of the issue raised by the opposition members that 1st respondent has ceased to be a Mayor the 1st respondent before taking steps in the matter was required to take legal opinion about it. Therefore he has directed his law officer to examine the position and if need be to consult Corporation Lawyer. When all this was going on, the top noted writ petition has been filed. After filing of the writ petition the matter became subjudice, no further action could be taken as it would have affected or interfered with the course, of justice. The statement of objections by respondent 2, substantially corroborates the above a,verments of the Mayor.