9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, V.D.Joshi, B.D. Joshi, S.C. Bora and Kailash Vasdev for the Petitioner. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.A. Bobde, V.J. Francis, N.M. Popli and Miss Almjit Chauhan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Sen, J.--This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 28, 1988, upholding the election of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Dr. Shantaram Kale and Takiqui Hassan, as Mayor and Deputy Mayor, respectively and respondents Nos. 3 to 8 as members of the standing committee at the first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation at the Alankar Hall, held on May 6, 1988, at 2 p.m. The issue involved is whether the first meeting of the corporation called for that day at 2.45 p.m. by the Municipal Commissioner, respondent No. 9, who presided over the meeting, was adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die and, therefore, had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him and thus necessitated the giving of seven days' clear notice as required by rule 1(h), Chapter II of the Rules framed under section 453 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Since the question involved was a matter of moment and the affidavits filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not hold the meeting in the unruly and disorderly situation prevailing and complained that despite his repeated requests to the councillors to maintain peace, it had no effect and they kept on shouting, raising slogans and fighting amongst themselves and thereby making it impossible for him to transact any business. The meeting was scheduled to be held at 2. p.m. and respondent No. 9 announced that the polling for the offices of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members of the standing committee would commence from 2.30 p. m. What happened thereafter reveals a very disturbing feature which unfortunately has become too common these days and shows the strain through which our democratic system is passing. At about 2.30 p.m., some of the councillors belonging to the Shiv Sena party sat on the ballot boxes and others belonging to that party and its supporters surrounded the Municipal Commissioner demanding that the meeting be adjourned to a subsequent date. Thereupon, the councillors belonging to the party-in-power, i.e., Congress-I, started shouting at him and saying that the meeting be held later on that day, being apprehensive that if the meeting were to be adjourned, they might lose the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. We had the benefit of hearing Shri S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 8 and Shri Vinod Bobde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9, the Municipal Commissioner. After a protracted hearing, we, at the end of the day, reserved orders. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we find it difficult to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. In view of the conflicting affidavits, the petitioner and his supporters asserting that the Municipal Commissioner had adjourned the meeting for the day and respondent No. 2 reiterating the version of the Municipal Commissioner that he had only suspended the proceedings so that the meeting could be held later on the same day and the business for the day, namely, election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and members of the standing committee, could be transacted, the High Court, relying on the 'preponderance of probabilities', has come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances, the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner, respondent No. 9, appeared to be 'more impressive, probable and convincing' and therefore, they were inclined to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Edition, at page 44, for the submission that in the case of adjournment sine die, the meeting stands adjourned to an unspecified date and as such a fresh notice calling for the meeting is necessary. Dr. Y.S. Chitale, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 8, and Shri Vinod Bobde, for respondent No. 9, on the other hand, contended that the meeting had not been adjourned sine die but that the proceedings had merely been suspended at 2.45 p.m. and the adjourned meeting at 4.30 p.m. was only a continuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an adjourned meeting had to be given. It was contended further that there was no warrant for interference under article 136 of the Constitution since a finding of fact has been reached by the High Court on a consideration of the material on record. It was also contended that the petitioner having failed to make good the averment in the writ petition that the meeting had been "adjourned for the day", the High Court was justified in declining to interfere. In order to appreciate the point in controversy, it is necessary to set out the relevant statutory provision bearing on the question. It is need less to stress that a Municipal Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner" The affidavits on record clearly show that the Municipal Commissioner, who presided over the meeting, was constrained to adjourn the meeting at 2.45 p.m. when some of the councillors belonging to the Shiv Sena party, of which the petitioner is the leader, went inside the booth and forcibly removed the ballot boxes and sat upon them to prevent casting of any votes, giving rise to commotion and pandemonium. What actually happened is best stated by the Municipal Commissioner in his affidavit: "As a result, there was tremendous confusion, chaos and uproar in the house and there was tremendous noise and nothing could be heard clearly. I say that there was tremendous tension and the situation was going out of control and it was not possible to conduct the election at that moment of time and, therefore, I announced that the meeting is adjourned and that the councillors should restore peace. I also said that I shall soon announce the time of meeting. I say that I did not leave the house and remained in the chair of the presiding authority hoping that peace would be restored and that I would be able to announce the time of the meeting. Thereafter, Shri Man Mohan Singh Oberoi rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continue the election process in that situation. It was also necessary to enable myself to decide and announce the time for the resumption of the further proceedings of the meeting" While setting out the facts, we have already adverted to the facts sworn by the Collector and the Superintendent of Police. There is no reason for not acting on these affidavits. The Collector says that "there was total confusion and bedlam inside the hall apart from the fact that "the entire atmosphere was surcharged with commotion" and that "the Municipal Commissioner was in a very agitated state of mind and said that he could not hold the meeting in. the unruly and disorderly situation prevailing". There can be no doubt that such unruly scenes, witnessed on that day gave rise to a serious law and order situation but both the Collector and the Superintendent of Police were able to restore order in the House and prevailed upon the outsiders to vacate the meeting hall in order that the proceedings could be resumed. The fact that the Municipal Commissioner did not leave the House or vacate the seat does lend support to the version that he had merely suspended the proceedings till order was restored. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumption" The passage in Shackleton at page 44, on which learned counsel relies, reads : "Adjourned meetings : Notice. An adjournment, if bona fide, is only a continuation of the meeting and the notice that was given for the first meeting holds good for and includes all the other meetings following it up. If, however, the meeting is adjourned sine die, a fresh notice must be given. No new business can be introduced unless notice of such new business is given" There can be no dispute with the proposition but the difficulty is about the applicability of that principle to the facts of the case. Literally, there is nothing on record to substantiate the petitioner's submission that the first meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1988, at 2 p.m. was "adjourned for the day" or "adjourned sine die" without transacting any business, i.e., without consideration of the agenda for the day. On the contrary, it is not in dispute that the business for the day was partly transacted when the councillors met at 2 p.m. as scheduled and the Municipal Commissioner declared that the polling would commence from 2 30 p.m. onwards. The trouble started at 2 30 p.m. when the councillors belonging to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings of the meeting. Rankin C.J. in Menaka Bala Dasi's case [1933] 37 CWN 583 ; AIR 1933 Cal 816, in repelling the contention that adjournment sine die of an application for making a decree in a mortgage suit final, was a discontinuance of it, observed (at page 817 of AIR 1933 (Cal)): "…..whatever may be the old authorities on that point, I have no doubt myself that with us today ' adjournment sine die' differs altogether from discontinuance. It is after all an adjournment, an adjournment to a date that is not at the moment fixed" The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheokumar Shashtri's case, AIR 1964 MP 195, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, it was admitted that the meeting of the Municipal Committee summoned for January 17, 1962, at which the motion of no confidence was to have been moved was adjourned sine die for want of quorum and the High Court held, relying upon the proviso to section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, that a meeting convened for consideration of a no confidence motion could not be adjourned sine die, but had to be adjourned to "some other day" for which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e event of disorder. Such an adjournment must be for no longer than the chairman considers necessary and the chairman must as far as possible, communicate his decision to those present. The law relating to adjournment has been put succinctly in Horsley's Meetings Procedure, Law and Practice, second edition, edited by W.John Taggart, at page 84, para 1002 : "The word 'adjournment' tends to be used loosely in connection with meetings. Indeed, as a result, the word is possibly in process of acquiring a further, derived meaning of 'close, conclude or finish', whereas a meeting or a debate is adjourned when its further proceedings are postponed to some subsequent time or to enable it to reassemble at some other place; to a later hour in the same day, to some future date, or indefinitely, i.e., sine die (without a day being named). The business (of the whole meeting or the debate respectively) is indeed suspended, but with an intention of deferring it until resumption at a later time" The learned author goes on to say that the word "adjourn" has been in use for almost five centuries in connection with meetings, with an early meaning of "to put off or defer proceedings to another day", ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
