1955 (2) TMI 11 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the meeting held on 3rd August 1954.
2. Validity of the election of the President and Vice-President for the remaining period of the quadrennium.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Meeting Held on 3rd August 1954:
The appellant argued that the meeting held on 3rd August 1954 was invalid on three grounds:
1. It was not an adjourned meeting as the meeting on 30th July 1954 had not been validly adjourned.
2. It had not been called by the Collector.
3. The written notice required by section 35(3) had not been given, served, or published as required by law.

The court examined these contentions and found that the meeting on 3rd August 1954 was indeed called by the Collector, and the Prant Officer presided over it under the Collector's instructions. Although the notice was not in writing, all councillors were present on both 30th July and 3rd August, and were aware of the meeting. The court held that the omissions in the manner of service of the notice were mere irregularities and did not vitiate the election, as all councillors were present and there was no prejudice to any party or individual.

The court also addressed the argument that the presiding officer had no power to adjourn the meeting on 30th July 1954. It was noted that even if the adjournment was unauthorized, the meeting on 3rd August 1954 complied in substance with the legal requirements for holding a valid special general meeting.

2. Validity of the Election of the President and Vice-President:
The appellant contended that the election of the President and Vice-President was invalid because:
1. The election of the President for the remaining period of the quadrennium was illegal.
2. The election of the President being invalid, the subsequent election of the Vice-President was also invalid.
3. The elections violated section 19 of the Act.

The court considered the High Court's view that the remaining period of the quadrennium would not necessarily end on 9th July 1955, but would extend until the new President and Vice-President were elected. However, the court found it unnecessary to pronounce on this issue due to the enactment of Act LIV of 1954 by the Bombay Legislature, which amended section 19 of the Act to validate elections held for the unexpired portion of the term of the municipality.

The court held that the amendment was retrospective and applied to all elections held between the passing of the amending Act XXXV of 1954 and the amending Act LIV of 1954. The amendment declared that such elections could not be questioned on the ground that the term of office was less than one year.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the amendment did not affect pending proceedings, citing the principle that clear language in an amending statute can apply to pending proceedings. The court concluded that the amending Act had the effect of curing any illegality or irregularity in the elections with reference to section 19 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, holding that the meeting on 3rd August 1954 was validly held and that there was no illegality in the election of the President and Vice-President. The appeal was dismissed with costs.