RAMCHAND NIHALCHAND ADVANI Vs. ANANDLAL BAPALAL KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by three persons praying for an appropriate writ to direct the first respondent who is the President of the Baroda Borough Municipality to desist from preventing the petitioners from acting as councillors of the Baroda Municipality.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :The three petitioners are councillors of Baroda Borough Municipality. On 9-3-61 they sent a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee addressed to the President as a protest against the manner of implementation of the scheme of compulsory vaccination for small-pox. This letter was treated by the President as a letter of resignation as councillors and not as a letter of resignation from the Sanitary Committee of which the three petitioners happened to be members. On 10-3-61 the President wrote a letter to the three petitioners acknowledging receipt of their letter dated 9-3-61 and entertaining certain hopes although they were going out of the Municipality. The three petitioners sent individual letters on 11-3-61 asserting that they had not resigned from the Municipality but they had resigned only from the Sanitary Committee. On these facts the petitioners approached the High Court for an appropriate writ to direct respondent No. 1 the President of the Municipality not to take any steps on the assumption that letter of resignation dated 9-3-61 is a letter of resignation from the Municipality and not from the Sanitary Committee of the Municipality.

(3.) A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondents that in these circumstances a joint petition is not maintainable and he relied on Muhammad Ibrahim v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Pudukottal A.I.R. 1956 Madras 626 and In re: Atmakuri Gopal Krishnarao A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 88 In reply it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the contention that a joint petition does not lie has not been pleaded in the reply to the petition. But as the contention relates to the form of the petition itself and as it can be decided by looking at the petition alone we allow this point to be argued.