LexSANTOKCHAND KANAIYALAL JAIN versus BHUSAVAL BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTIIERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I
\
•
{I •
')
~
' •
..
•
A
SANTOKCHAND KANAIY ALAL JAIN
\I,
BHUSAVAL BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY AND OTIIERS
September 2, 1965
B
[K. SUBBA RAo, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, J1.]
Municipalities-PresidenJ elected by Municipality /or residue o/ its
term-Normal term of municipality as provided in •· 25 of Bombay M111u-
cipal Borough Act four years-Term of municipality extended beyond four
years by s. 3 of Maharashtra Municipality (Postponment of General Elec-
C
tions Unification of Municipal laws) Aot, 1964-Eff'°t of such extension
on term of President-Second proviso to s. 19 of Municipal Boroughs Act
whether attracted.
D
E
F
H
The appellant was elected President of the Bhusaval Borough Munici-
pality in Bombay State in July 1964. On the same day the Municipality
passed a resolution to the effect that the term of office of the President
would be "the residue of the term of office of the municipality". The four
years' term of the municipality as provided in s. 25 of the Bombay Munici-
pal Boroughs Act 1925 (Bombay Act 18 of 1925) was due to expire on
February 17, 1965. However in the meanwhile the Maharashtra Munici-
palities (Postponement of General Elections Pending Unification of Muni-
cipal Law•) Act, 1964 was passed, and under s. 3 thereof the term of the
councillors of the municipality was by fiction extended to December 31,
1965. The Collector of the area on the assumption that the term of the
President ending on February 17, 1965, issued notice for a fresh election
in March 1965. The appellant filed an application under Arts. 226 and
227 of the Constitution and contended that as the term of office of $e
municipality had been extended up to December 31, 1965 be was entitled
to be President till that date under the resolution passed by the Munici-
pality. The High Court rejected the contention. The appellant,
with
a
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court, came to this Court.
The short question in the appeal was whether the expression "the residue
of the municipality" in the resolution of the municipality meant the residue
of the municipality that would have been if the Maharashtra Act had not
been passed or whether it should be interpreted in the context of the extended
term provided by the Maharashtra Act.
On behalf of the appellant it was
argued that the appellant would get the extended term provided by the
Maharashtra Act, because in effect it was an extension under the
Act
within the meaning of the second proviso to s. 19 of the Act or in any
event he got the benefit because the Maharashtra Act in effect amended
s. 25 of the Act with the result that 'residue' of the 'tenn' was extended to
December 31, 1965.
HELD : (i) The impact of s. 3 of the Maharashtra Act on the pro~i-
1ions of the Municipal Boroughs Act is that it not only extends the term
prescribed under s. 25 of the Act but also the term extended under s. 2S
or under any other section of the Act. If that was the legal effect of the
Maharashtra Act, the second proviso to s. 19 was not a!tracted to the
instant case as there was no order or notification issued under s~ 25 or any
Qther relevant section of the Act extending the term of the Councillors fixed
nndcr s. 25 of ·the Act. Therefore for the present purpose the second
proviso to s. 19 had te> be left out of consideration and the problem bad
696
SUP.IBMB COUKT REPOR.TS
(1966] I S.C.R.
to be approached on the ba9is of the fiction that the term of the Councillors
A
~
prescribed under s. 25 of the Act was extended up to December 31 1965.
f
(699 G-700 Al
'
(ii) The intention of the municipality could be gathered only from the
circumstances statutory or otherwise existing at the time when the resolu-
tion was passed and on the express terms of the said resolution.
The second proviso to s. 19 contemplates the extension of the term of
office of the Municipality under the Act.
It was therefore not possible to
predicate that at the time the resolution was passed the municipahty could
not have contcmpla!cd a situa1ion when the term of the Municipality woukJ
be extended under the provisions of the Act.
Moreover from the Statement
of objects underlying the issuance of the Ordinance which culminated in
the Maharashtra Act it appeared that the question of extension of the term
of the municipalities in the State was under serious consideration even in
July 1963.
Indeed on or about July 18, 1964 when the term of the Prcsi-
dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.