MISHRIMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India presented by 65 tax-payers of the Municipal Board, Jalore. They have prayed that an appropriate writ be issued quashing the order of the Collector dated 28th July, 1960, whereby he suspended the implementation of various resolutions of the Board, and also for a suitable direction to the Government of Rajasthan to decide the question of disqualification of two members of the said Board.

(2.) THE last general elections to the Municipal Board, Jalore, were held in the month of May, 1958. THE strength of the Board is 8 elected and 2 nominated members. On 7th August, 1958, Shri Ugam See Modi, respondent No. 5, was elected Chairman and the Board commenced functioning from 9th August, 1958. THE Board worked well, but it is said that early in 1959 the Chairman came into conflict with a Minister in the State of Rajasthan and this conflict projected itself in the functioning of the Board. A vote of no-confidence was tabled against Shri Modi on 14th May, 1959. It is alleged that under some understanding between the parties interested Shri Modi agreed to resign and the motion of no-confidence was not pressed. Eventually Shri Modi also withdrew his resignation and as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 319 of 1960 he continues to be the Chairman of the Board.

(3.) IN the first case which relates to the cancellation of mining leases by the State of Orissa, the High Court granted interim relief till a suit was instituted by the petitioners. On an appeal the Supreme Court held that Article 226 could not be used for the mere purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court had purported to do. IN the course of the judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows: - "the language of the Article shows that the issuing of writs or directions by the Court is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) has been infringed. It can also issue writs or give similar directions for any other purpose. The concluding words of Art. 226 have to be read in the context of what precedes the same. Therefore the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under this Article. "