1989 (3) TMI 380 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the meeting postponement by the Mayor.
2. Legality of the election of respondents as Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
3. Applicability of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904.
4. Precedential value of Chandrakant Khaire's case.
5. Bonafide exercise of the Mayor's power to cancel the meeting.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the meeting postponement by the Mayor:

The central issue revolves around whether the Mayor had the authority to postpone a duly convened meeting. The appellants argued that the Mayor, who has the power to convene a meeting, also holds the implied power to cancel or postpone it under Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, however, held that "a properly convened meeting cannot be postponed" and that members are entitled to ignore the notice of postponement and hold the meeting if they form a quorum.

2. Legality of the election of respondents as Mayor and Deputy Mayor:

The respondents claimed to have been elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor at a meeting held on June 1, 1988, which the appellants argued was invalid due to the postponement notice. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court upheld the election, pointing out that the quorum was met, thus making the meeting valid. The Single Judge had earlier dismissed the writ petition, stating that the postponement was within the Mayor's statutory powers.

3. Applicability of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904:

Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which allows for the rescinding of orders, was a point of contention. The appellants argued that this provision gave the Mayor the implied power to cancel or postpone the meeting. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, stating that the Mayor's powers are statutory and derived from the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and thus, Section 21 applies.

4. Precedential value of Chandrakant Khaire's case:

The Division Bench felt bound by the observations in Chandrakant Khaire's case, which stated that "a properly convened meeting cannot be postponed." However, the Supreme Court clarified that these observations were not the ratio decidendi of the case and were based on different facts where a meeting had already commenced. The Court noted that the principles underlying Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act were not considered in Chandrakant Khaire's case.

5. Bonafide exercise of the Mayor's power to cancel the meeting:

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the Mayor has the power to cancel a meeting, this power must be exercised bonafide and for a proper purpose within the scope of the Act. The case was remanded to the Gujarat High Court to determine whether the Mayor's actions were bonafide or for a collateral purpose. The Court requested an expedited resolution by April 30, 1989, and extended the interim order until May 5, 1989.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of remanding the case to the Gujarat High Court for determination of whether the Mayor's cancellation of the meeting was bonafide. The Court emphasized that the Mayor's statutory power to convene a meeting includes the implied power to cancel or postpone it, provided it is exercised in good faith and for legitimate reasons. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.