KANTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Smt. Kanta Devi and Kriparam under Article 226 of the constitution against the State of Rajasthan for a writ, direction or order in connection with the nomination of members to the Municipal Board of Pokaran. (2)Brief facts alleged by the applicants are these: there is a municipality in the town of Pokaran governed by the Rajasthan Town municipalities Act (No. XXIII of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act ). The membership of the Board consists of eight elected and two nominated members. The election to the Board took place sometime before January, 1956 and eight persons were duly elected thereto. Thereafter on 28th January, 1956, the Government of Rajasthan made two nominations in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 9 of the Act. These two persons are the two applicants before us. The District Magistrate then issued a notice fixing a date, place and time for election of the Chairman of the Board. The date was the 7th of March, 1956. Information of this was sent to the applicants also. It may also be mentioned that before this meeting of the 7th of March, 1956, another meeting of the Board was called by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pokaran for taking oath by the members and this was fixed for the 1st of March, 1956. Notice of this was also sent to the two applicants.

(2.) THIS meeting of the 1st of March, 1956 was, however, postponed to the 4th of march, 1s56. In the meantime another notification was issued by the Government on 24th February, 1956, In this notification two other persons, viz. . Smt. Hiradevi and Damaram were notified as having been nomi- nated and the notification dated 28th January, 1956 nominating the two applicants was cancelled. Thereupon the present application was made by the applicants on the 8th of March, 1956. They also got a stay order issued and though the Board has started functioning, neither the first set of nominated members, viz. the applicants nor the second set of members, viz. , opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 have taken oath.

(3.) THE case of the applicants is that after the Government had nominated them to the Board on the 28th of January, 1956, it was not open to the Government to cancel that notification and nominate other persons instead. Reliance in this connection is placed on Section 14 of the Act and it is urged that it is only in the manner provided in that section that the Government can remove any member from the membership of the Board.