(THAKUR) NEMSINGH Vs. KRISHNARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The facts leading to this application for revision may shortly be stated thus: The Municipal Committee of Dhamtari was formed in 1928 when one Mr. Nathuji Jagtap was elected its chairman and Messrs. Handu Lal and Sheoram Prasad as the vice-presidents. The latter having died the Deputy Commissioner called upon the Municipal Committee to elect his successor.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY at a meeting of the Committee held on 1st February 1930 all the 15 members who constituted the Committee assembled and proceeded to elect a vice-president in place of the deceased Sheoram Prasad. Mr. Nathuji Jagtap as the statutory chairman occupied the chair and invited nomination papers. This was objected to by a member, Mr. Biswas, who proposed that the chairman for the meeting should be elected in accordance with Rule 20 of the rules framed by the Local Government under Section 18(6), C.P. Municipalties Act. This proposal was overruled by Mr. Nathuji, but in spite of it eight members of Mr. Biswas's party elected Mr. Biswas as the chairman and invited nominations for the vacant office. The result was that Thakur Nemsingh's nomination paper was received by Mr. Nathuji who declared him duly elected as. a vice-president. Another nomination paper proposing Mr. Krishnarao Date was handed over to Mr. Biswas and he declared Mr. Date elected. The Local Government however declared Thakur Nemsingh's election valid and a notification to that effect was accordingly published in the Central Provinces Gazette, dated 19th April 1930.

(3.) NEITHER party adduced any oral evidence in the case, but the petitioner filed a certified copy of the proceedings of the meeting in question which is maiked Ex. A-1. On an interpretation of the provisions of the C.P. Municipalities Act and the rules made thereunder the learned Subordinate Judge held that there was a proper quorum at the meeting held for the election of the vice-president, but that as Mr. Nathuji could not legally preside at the said meeting the election of Thakur Nemsingh was not in order. He further held that the election of Krishnarao Date could not also be upheld because "it wasdone by a section of the members who had seceded from the meeting." The result therefore was that both the elections were declared invalid. Against this order Thakur Nemsingh has therefore come up to this Court in revision.