KESHAV MAHADEV SONALKAR Vs. LAKSHMAN NARAYAN PHADNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent, Mr. Phadnis, was elected a member of the Municipality of Jalgaon on February 12, 1925, for a period of three years commencing from April 1, 1925 ; and on May 9, 1925, the Municipality elected him to be a member of the School Board. On August 26, 1925, on a petition to the District; Judge, it was held that he was disqualified under Section 15 (f) of the District Municipal Act for election on the Municipality by reason of his interest in a printing contract which the Municipality had entered with his father with whom he was joint. From September 23, 1925, the defendant No. 1, appellant Mr. Sonalkar, Chairman of the School Board Jalgaon, refused to send him notices of the meetings of the School Board or to allow him to serve thereon, notwithstanding a subsequent resolution of the Municipality in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly in 1926 the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 brought a suit against the Chairman Mr. Sonalkar, as defendant No. 1 appellant and defendant No. 2 the School Board for a declaration that he continued to be a member of the School Board and was entitled to work on it and for invalidating all the resolutions from September 29 onwards and a mandatory injunction accordingly.

(2.) The defendant-appellant relied on the disqualification under Section 15(f) against the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 School Board took no part in the suit.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiff's disqualification to serve on the Municipality necessarily implied a similar disqualification to serve on the School Board, and dismissed the suit, ordering each party to pay its own costs as no malice on the part of defendant No. 1 was proved. In appeal by the plaintiff, the District Judge took a contrary view, and held that the plaintiff's disqualification from the Municipality did not disqualify him from being a member of the School Board and that the disqualification was not proved to have existed on the necessary dates in the case of the School Board, allowed the appeal, and granted declarations with costs in the District Court against defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 appeals.