LexCHANDRAKANT KHAIRE versus DR. SHANTARAM KALE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
'.
CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE
v.
DR. SHANTARAM KALE & ORS.
JULY 29, 1988
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ .. ]
Municipalities: Bombay Provincial Corporation Act 1949/
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Rules.
A
B
Section 453/Chapter II Rule J(h)-Powers of Chairman-
'Adjourned for the day', adjourned sine die,' 'proceedings suspended'-
C
Distinction betweem.
·
Section 6(2)-First meeting of the Municipal Corporation-
Properly convened-Cannot be adjourned for another day or sine die.
Words and phrases: 'Adjourned for the day' 'adjourned sine D
die'-Meaning of.
Aller the election of Members, the first meeting of the Auranga-
bad Municipal Corporation was held on May 6, 1983 at 2 P.M. and the
Municipal Commissioner announced that the polling for the offices of
Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of the standing Committee would
E
commence from 2.30 p.m. onwards. But at 2.30 P .M. some of the
CounciUors belonging to the Opposition Party sat on the ballot
boxes and some. others surrounded the Municipal Commissioner and
demanded that the meeting be adjourned to a subsequent date. The
Councillors belonging to the ruling party demanded that the meeting
and election be held later on that day. Total confusion and bedlam
F
prevailed and the rival groups started throwing Chairs at each other,
leading to a pandemonium. It was a free for all, and even outsiders were
present. When the situation was brought under control, the Municipal
Commissioner announced that the meeting would continue and the elec-
tions would be held at 4.30 p.m.
G
The. petitioner filed a protest at 4.15 p.m. stating that the meeting
had been adjourned by the Municipal Commissioner for the day and,
therefore, the holding of the meeting later on the same day would he
>
improper and illegal. Thereafter, the opposition group abstained from
participating in the meeting held at 4.30 p.m., in which Respondents 1
and 2 were declared elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively
H
725
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
A and Respondents 3-8 as Members of the Standing Committee.
In a Writ Petition filed before the High Court, the appellant
questioned the election, on the basis that the meeting in which the
election was held, was invalid. The High Court held that the meeting
was not adjourned for the day or sine die, but was only postponed, to be
B
held as soon as peace was restored on the very day and upheld the
election of Respondents 1 to 8. Against the judgment of the High Court,
the petitioner has filed the present special leave.11etition.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the meeting was
not adjourned to a definite point of time and must therefore be
C regarded as adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die.
The contention ot tbe Respondents was that the meeting had not
been adjourned sine die but the proceedings had merely been suspended
at 2.45 p.m. and the adjourned meeting held at 4.30 p.m. was a con-
tinuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an adjourned
D meeting had to be given. It was also contended that there was no
f'
\
warrant for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution since a
~
E
finding of fact had been reached by the High Court on consideration of
the material on record.
Dismissing.the petition,
HELD: 1. A properly convened meeting cannot be jlostponed.
The proper course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally
intended, and. then and there adjourn it to a more suitable date. If this
course be not adopted, membei:i; will be entitled to ignore the notice of
postponement, and, if sufficient to form a quorum, hold the meeting as
F
originally convened and validly transact the business thereat. Even if
the relevant rules do not give the chairman power to adjourn the meet-
ing, he may do so in the event of disorder. Such an adjournment must
be for no longer than the chairman considers necessary and the
chairman must, so-far as possible, communicate his decision to th0$e
present. [739F-G]
G
2.1 In the instant case, the High Court was right in holding that
the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation fixed by the Municipal
Commissioner for May 6, 1988 was not 'adjourned for the day' or
· 'adjourned sine die' but had only been put off to a later hour i.e. the
(' ,
proceedings had only been suspended, to re-commence when peace and
H order were restored. [7400-E]
.'
C. KHAIRE v. li>R. S. KALE
727
2.2· There is nothing on rExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.