PRESIDENT MUNICIPAL BOARD SHAHJAHANPUR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHAHJAHANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Bishanchandra Seth, the applicant in the two petitions, was elected President of the Municipal Board, Shahjahanpur at the general election held in November, 1953. The candidate, who was defeated by the petitioner, was the Chairman of the Board for a long time before the election of the applicant. He has in the present Board organised the opposition party and a number of efforts were made by the opposition to oust the petitioner from the office of the Presidentship. A notice for motion of no-confidence was given to the District Magistrate, against the applicant. The motion was, however, subsequently lost. After the proceedings for no-confidence were over, it 10 alleged by the petitioner that in the ordinary course he tabled the revised budget of the Board for the year 1954-55 as also the original budget; for the year 1955-5S on 21-3-1955, for the examination and inspection of the members of the Board.. A meeting of the Board for the purpose of passing the budget was fixed for 29-3-1955 at 3.00 p.m. Some of the members of the opposition group approached the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and made certain complaints against the petitioner. The petitioner was informed on 28-3-1955 that the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur on the complaint made by some of the members, had directed the City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to attend and supervise the meeting of

(2.) the Board, which was going to be held on 29-3-1955. Thereupon the applicant Wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur. A copy of the letter is annexed to the petition as Annexure A. In the letter, the petitioner mentioned that he had come to know from reliable source that the District Magistrate had directed the City Magistrate to watch the proceedings of the meeting to be held on 29-3-1955 which was against the principles of democracy. ' The letter further- said that in case the district Magistrate was not prepared to withdraw the directions which he had issued to the City Magistrate, the petitioner was going to adjourn, the meeting. No reply was sent to this letter by 29-3-1955. The meeting was adjourned and the District Magistrate sent a reply on 30-3-1955. It said that he had not deputed the City Magistrate to get the meeting of the Board conducted under his supervision but the City Magistrate was to remain present in the meeting and was simply to watch the proceedings from the public gallery and not to interfere with the proceedings. On 29-3-1955, when the meeting was held, the City Magistrate, it is alleged by the applicant, came to the meeting hall, sat down by the side of the applicant and the applicant adjourned the meeting for the next date as he thought that that was an encroachment upon his rights. On 30-3-1955, another letter was sent by the applicant to the District Magistrate in which he again protested against the presence of the City Magistrate in the meeting of the Board and again inquired from the District Magistrate if he was still going to send the City Magistrate to supervise the proceedings of the meeting which was to be held on the 30th March. No reply was received by the applicant to the aforesaid letter and the adjourned meeting of the Board was held on 30-3-1955 at 3.00 p.m. When, the meeting started, the City Magistrate came in the meeting hall and sat near the applicant chair. Thereupon, the applicant, in order to avoid the difficulties in the running of the administration of the Board as the budget had not yet been considered and passed, directed the Executive Officer of the Board to call the adjourned meeting of the Board of the 30th March on 7-4-1955 at 5.30 p.m. The meeting was directed to be held in camera. When the meeting of 7-4-1955 started at 5.30-p.m. a telephonic call from the District Magistrate was received by the petitioner directing the petitioner not to hold the meeting in camera. An order dated 7-4-1955 was also received by the appellant to the effect that the applicant was prohibited from holding the meeting in camera. The order is set out in Annexure D to the present Petition. It is necessary to refer to some portions of the order. The preamble of the order reads as follows:

(3.) Petition No. 472 of 1955 has been filed by the President, Municipal Board, Shanjahanpur through Sri Bishanchandra Seth, while petition No. 517 of 1955 has been filed by Sri Bishanchandra Seth in his personal capacity. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the opposite parties in the two petitions. It will be convenient to deal separately with both the petitions. So far as the petition No. 472 of 1955 against the order of the District Magistrate dated 7-4-1955 is concerned, in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the District Magistrate received complaints, that the President did net properly record the proceedings of the meeting of the Board, On 22-3-1955, the District Magistrate received a specific complaint signed by 19 members of the Board complaining that the President of the Board wrote resolutions in accordance with his wishes and irrespective of the real decision of the Board. It was further complained that be would start meetings of the Board before the appointed time and exclude the opposition from taking part in it. It was requested that a responsible officer be deputed to the meeting to supply first-hand in-formation to the Collector. On 26-3-1955, Sri K.B. Gupta, one of the signatories of the complaint dated 22-3-1955, informed the District Magistrate that the meeting of the Board was to be held on 29-3-1955. The District Magistrate, thereupon, by his order dated 26-3-1955, directed the City Magistrate to watch! and note down the proceedings of the meeting from the public gallery. On 28-3-1955, the President wrote a letter, which I have already referred to earlier in my judgment, to the District Magistrate and a reply to the said letter was sent by the District Magistrate. On 29-3-1955 the meeting was held at 8.00 p.m. The City Magistrate, however, reached there at 3.15 p.m. It is conceded in the counter-affidavit that the City Magistrate took his seat in the vacant space which was Provided for the public to sit but he did not sit by the side of the President of the meeting as has been alleged by the petitions. The President, on seeing the City Magistrate in the meeting hall, stood up and announced that as the Magistrate was present, he would adjourn the meeting as a protest. Thereupon the City Magistrate submitted a report to the District Magistrate. The adjourned meeting was to be held on 30-3-1955. In the meantime, the District) Magistrate received another request signed by 20 members of the Board to depute the City Magistrate to watch the proceedings of the meeting to be held on the next date. The City Magistrate was again asked by the District Magistrate to go and watch the proceedings and on the 30th of March, the meeting was again adjourned as a protest against the presence of the City Magistrate. It is again denied that the City Magistrate sat by the side of the President. On 6-4-1955, the District Magistrate again received a letter signed by 8 members of the Board intimating him that the President was going to hold the meeting in camera on the 7th April and they further requested the District Magistrate to depute the City Magistrate to be present at the meeting. The order dated 7-4-1955 was thereupon, passed by the District Magistrate. At 5.00 p.m. on the same day, the District Magistrate contacted the applicant on phone and communicated to him the substance of the order The District Magistrate purported to pass an order under Section 34 (1) (b), Municipalities Act. The order was passed 'bona fide' in the interest of general public and of the Board and there was no ulterior motive behind it. It is stated in the) counter-affidavit that the action taken by the District Magistrate was in good faith and in 'bona fide discharge of his duties with no 'mala fide' intentions. It is asserted that the City Magistrate could attend the meeting as a member of the general public to watch and note down the proceedings of the meeting and there was no intention on; the part of the City Magistrate to interfere in any way with the proceedings of the meeting. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that in view of the attitude adopted by the applicant, it was not thought necessary by the District Magistrate to give 'any opportunity to the applicant to show cause against the order of 7-4-1955. Further, the matter was urgent and there was no time left to give any opportunity to the applicant.