KASHINATH LAXMAN BHIDE Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE councillors of the Kalyan Municipality were elected by a general election in the beginning of 1949 and their term of office was three years. The first meeting of the Municipality was held on 29-4-1949, and petitioner No. 1 was elected president up to 31-3-1950. One Hande was elected president from 1-4-1950 to 31-3-1951, and petitioner No. 2 was elected president for the period 1-4-1951 to 31-3-1952. Opponent No. 2 was elected president from 1-4-1952 to 31-5-1952. He was elected only for a period of two months because Government had extended ttie life of the Kalyan Municipality for a period of two months. Under the law, the ordinary term of office, as already pointed out, of the Municipality is-three years, but Government have been given the power to extend it for one year. Government further extended the life of the Municipality for seven months up to 31-12-1952. ami on 1-6-1952, opponent No. 2 was again elected president for seven months up to 31-12-1952. Government further extended the life of the Municipality up to 29-4-1953. A meeting was called by opponent No. 2 for 6-1-1953, to elect a president, but for some reason the meeting could not be held and no election of the president took place. On 31-1-1953, opponent No. 2 called a routine meeting of the Municipality. On 29-1-1953, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Collector of Thana pointing out that opponent No. 2 wes only elected up to 31-12-1952, and no meeting had been called for election of another President and the Collector should interfere and take necessary action. On 2-2-1953, the Collector passed an order holding that it was not lawful for opponent No. 2 to call the meeting on 31-1-1953, to conduct the ordinary business. On 16-2-1953, an application was made to the Collector to call a meeting for the election of a president and on 13-3-1933, the Collector passed an order calling a meeting for 19-3-1953. It may be nointed out that on 27-2-1953, the Director of Local Authorities confirmed the action taken by the Collector on 2-2-1953, and he took the view that the president's action in calling a meeting on 31-1-1953, for conducting the ordinary business after his term as president had expired was 'ultra vires' of the provisions of the Act. On 13-3-1953, the Government passed an order purporting to be under powers vested in them under Sub-section (3) of Section 214 of the Municipal Boroughs Act, setting aside the orders issued by the Collector of Thana and confirmed by the Director of Local Authorities, and directing that the action of the president of the Kalyan Municipality in calling a meeting on 31-1-1953, for conducting the ordinary business was in order. In this order the Government expressed the opinion that the term of the Municipality having been extended up to 29-4-1953, and as Mr. Shukla, opponent No. 2, would be holding the office of the president for not less than one year, his continuing in office could not now be questioned. The present petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by Government and also for an order restraining opponent No. 2 from functioning as the President of the Municipality.

(2.) MR. Tarkunde has made it clear that he is not asking for any writ against the State of Bombay, nor does he want the order of the Government to be quashed. He says that he is not interested in challenging that order. What he really wants in this petition is a writ in the nature of 'quo warranto' and his contention is that opponent No. 2 is not entitled in law to hold the office of President of the Kalyan Municipality, and that we should give a declaration to that effect and pass an injunction restraining opponent No. 2 from functioning as President of the Kalyan Municipality.

(3.) SECTION 19 (1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, provides :