HARIHARPRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal was filed against an order made by Bhutt, J. on 21st Oct. 1954 but most of the grounds which have been urged against the learned Single Judge's decision have now been abandoned except one.

(2.) The appellant contends that the meeting of the Sabha, which took place on the 24th and 25th March 1954 with the old councillors constituting the Sahha, was illegal in view of the for that on 27th Nov. 1953 the election of the new councillors had been notified and they must be deemed to have entered office from that date. The learned Single Judge in his discussion has considered the effect of Sec. 20 along with Sec. 33 of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act 1948. The learned Judge has held that Sec. 20 is only an enabling provision and that the councillors do not enter upon their office by the fact of mere notification. In our opinion and we say it with all due respect, the matter has to be considered under Sec. 12 and the scheme of the Act.

(3.) Under the scheme of the Act, the first Sabha had to be nominated because the elections were not required. The nominated Sabha continued in office according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 12 either till the 31st March 1954 or an earlier date, if so notified by the State Government. It is admitted before us that there was no notification by the State Government terminating the life of the nominated Sabha prior to 31st March 1954. Thus, in accordance with the proviso, which is a special law enacted to indicate the life of the nominated Sabha, the old Sabha continued till 31st March 1954. The meeting was held on 24th and 25th March 1954 and was within the life of the old nominated Sabha.