TELU RAM JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have led Telu Ram Jain to make this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are not in dispute and are these. The petitioner was elected unopposed on 22-10-1954 as a member of the Cantonment Board, Jullundur Cantonment. This Board consists of eight official and seven elected members. The other six members were elected during October and November 1954. A meeting of the Board was held on 31-12-1954, to elect Vice-President of the Board under Section 20(3), Cantonments Act (Act 2 of 1924). In that meeting all the seven elected members and six out of eight official members were present. Telu Ram Jain, the petitioner before me, was elected as Vice-Fresident. It appears that some of the members objected to the procedure adopted in this meeting. On 23-2-1955, Lt. General K. sECTION Thimayya, G. O.C.-in-Chief, Western Command, acting under Section 52 of the said Act directed that action on the decision contained in the resolution of the Board declaring Telu Ram Jain as Vice- Fresident should remain suspended for a period of two months and called upon the Board to show cause against this order within 15 days. Thereupon this Court was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash this order of suspension. Notice was issued on this petition by a Division Bench of this Court but the application for stay was refused. Thereafter on 22-4-1955, the G.O.C.-in-Chief acting under Section 52(1) (b) of the Act ordered that the resolution In question should not be carried into effect and directed the Board to hold another election for this purpose. The petitioner then applied to this Court to stay proceedings relating to fresh election and this petition was granted by this Court on 3-5-1955.

(2.) Shri A. N. Grover has argued on behalf of the petitioner that the election of a Vice-President under Section 20(3), Cantonments Act, and the rules made thereunder is neither a decision nor a decision of the Board. He further urged that the G.O.C.-in-Chief had no power to suspend the resolution as the election of the Vice President was not covered by the supervisory authority given to him under Section 52. In the end the learned counsel submitted that in any case the order of suspension and the cancellation of this resolution could not be passed without giving sufficient notice to the petitioner who alone was aggrieved with the order.

(3.) Now, 8 52(1) (b) under which the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, has suspended and then directed that the election of the Vice-President in the meeting held on 31-12-1954, should not be carried into effect, reads -