BHALCHANDRA KRISHNARAO DIWANJI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the President of the Municipal Committee, Badnera, for a suitable order or direction, or writ, to quash notification No. 4688 -5656 -M -XIII, dated October 10, 1956, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated October 12, 1956.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tax -payer and a voter of the Municipal Committee, Badnera. He was duly elected as the President of the said Committee on May 12, 1954 (The election of the President under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act is direct). Similarly, the Committee was constituted on May 12, 1954. The Government by notification No. 4638 -5656 -M -XIII, dated October 10, 1956, issued under Section 53 -A of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (II of 1922), appointed Shri S.S. Chaube, Naib Tahasildar, as the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee for a period of eighteen months from the date of his taking over charge and directed that Shri Chaube shall exercise and perform powers, duties and functions of the committee, president, vice -president and secretary to the exclusion of the committee, president, vice -president and secretary under certain provisions of the Act mentioned in the said notification. The petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash this notification.

(3.) IT is next contended as a preliminary objection that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition on his behalf. The action has been taken against the Municipal Committee and the petitioner could have no grievance. It is not possible for us to accept this contention. Apart from the Municipal Committee, the petitioner has also his own grievance. As already stated, the petitioner was elected president directly to the Municipal Committee. The Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act provides certain procedure by which a President is prevented from exercising powers and perform duties of his office. If, in fact, he has been prevented from performing his functions as a President in a manner which contravenes the law, then, in our opinion, he has got a grievance and he could come up before us under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dealing with similar matters the Nagpur High Court has entertained petitions filed by Presidents of Municipal Committees. See Gokal v. The State of M.P. (1950) N.L.J. 509; Tikaram v. Municipal Committee, Sindi(1954) N.L.J. 683; and Rupnarayan Tondon v. State of M.P. (1955) N.L.J. 41. We see no good reason why we should take a view different from that taken in those cases.