JAYANTBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS versus ARUN SUBODHBHAI MEHTA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 28-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAYANTBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS 
v. 
ARUN SUBODHBHAI MEHTA AND OTHERS 
MARCH 28, 1989 
[M.H. KANIA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949-Sections 
19, 453 and Schedule Chapter 11 Clause l(c)-Mayor of Municipal 
Corporation-Whether has power to cancel the notice and postpone the 
meeting convened by him before meeting was held. 
··~· 
c 
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904--Section 21-Whether 
Mayor has power to cancel the notice and postpone meeting convened ·+ 
by him before the meeting is held. 
Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 were elected on June 30, 1987 as Mayor 
D 
and Deputy Mayor respectively of the Municipal Corporation of 
Bhavnagar, Gujarat for a period of one year. On May 21, 1988 a notice 
was issued by them for convening a meeting of the members of the 
Corporation on June 1, 1988 to elect a Mayor and Deputy Mayor and 
for certain other business mentioned in the Agenda circulated. Subse-
quently, on May 31, 1988, appellant No. 1 gave instructions by a letter 
E 
to the Deputy Secretary of the Corporation to postpone the meeting as 
he had to go to Gandhinagar for urgent work of the Corporation. The 
said instructions were given by appellant No. 1 after consulting 32 
members of the Corporation. Pursuant to the said letter and the 
instructions contained therein, appellant No. 3, the Secretary of the 
Corporation, issued a letter addressed to all the members of the Cor-
f 
poration informing them that the meeting scheduled for June 1, 1988 
had been postponed. In spite of the aforesaid letter postponing the 
meeting, 19 members of the Corporation, presumably belonging to the 
minority party or parties; assembled at the place indicated in the notice 
dated May 21, 1988 and elected respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as Mayor and 
Deputy Mayor. Neither the Commissioner of the Corporation nor its 
G 
Secretary or Deputy Secretary was present at the said meeting, and the 
minutes otthat meeting were not recorded. 
As the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 did not hand over the charge to 
respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the latter filed a writ petition in the High 
Court for being declared as legally elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor 
H and for an order that charge of the said posts should be handed over to 
them. 
110 
;. . 
-
-
J.M. PATEL v. A.S. MEHTA 
111 
)-
The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition taking the view that 
A 
as the Mayor in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-
clause (c) of clause (1) of Chapter II of the Schedule (under s. 453) in the 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 can issue a notice 
for convening the meeting, he is also entitled to the power to cancel or 
rescind the notice under the provisions of section 21 of the Bombay 
General Clauses Act, 1904. 
B 
t ' 
Division Bench of the High Court, however, allowed the Letters 
!· 
Patent Appeal filed by respond~nts Nos. 1 and 2 taking the view that it 
was bound by the view taken by this Court in Chandrakant Khaire v. 
"' 
Dr. Shantaram Kale and others, [1988) 4 sec 577 where it was 
observed that a properly convened meeting could not be postponed. The c 
proper course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally intended and 
..... 
then and there adjourn it to a more suitable date . 
In the appeal by special leave filed by the appellants before this 
Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Division 
Bench had committed an error in following the observations made in 
D 
Chandrakant Khaire's case as that case could be distinguished on facts, 
that the question raised in this appeal was practically covered on the 
basis of analogy, by the ratio of the decision of this Court in Mohd. 
~-
Yunus Saleem v. Shiv Kumar Shastri and others, [1974) 3 SCR 738 
which dealt with analogous provisions of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 and that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the 
E 
Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which were applicable to the case, 
-
since appellant No. 1 had the power to convene the meeting of the 
members of the Corporation, it must be held that he also had the 
implied power to cancel or postpone the meeting. 
"""' 
Respondent No. 1 contested the appeal and submitted that the 
F 
4 decision in Chandrakant Khaire's case was directly applicable to the 
case and it must be held that the appellant No. 1 had no power to cancel 
the notice convening the meeting and hence it must be held that the 
meeting at which the supporters of respondent No. 1 whic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.