Unlawful adjournment of a municipal election meeting cannot defeat a valid resumed election when quorum remains present.

A municipal meeting called to elect a Chairman could not be adjourned by the presiding officer without the consent of the majority of members present, absent a recognised exceptional situation such as disorder. An unlawful adjournment did not prevent the remaining members from continuing the unfinished business, and the election was valid where quorum existed when the vote was taken. The text also treats a ministerial order under section 242(2) as quasi-judicial in rival election claims, but vulnerable to certiorari if it contains patent errors of law, including failure to address the legality of the adjournment and a mistaken view of quorum and continuity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Senior Vice Chairman could lawfully adjourn the municipal meeting called for election of Chairman without the consent of the majority and after reserving ruling on a point of order; (ii) whether the members who remained could validly continue the meeting and elect the petitioner as Chairman after such adjournment; (iii) whether the Minister's order under section 242(2) of the Regulation was within jurisdiction and free from errors warranting certiorari.

Issue (i): whether the Senior Vice Chairman could lawfully adjourn the municipal meeting called for election of Chairman without the consent of the majority and after reserving ruling on a point of order.

Analysis: The meeting had been properly convened and the only business was election of a Chairman. The point of order raised under section 13(2) had already been negatived by the High Court in the earlier proceedings, and the Chairman's refusal to decide it then and there was treated as a pretext to avoid holding the election. Under section 55 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, adjournment required the consent of the majority of members present, save in recognised exceptional situations such as disorder. No such situation existed. The attempted reservation of ruling and adjournment were therefore contrary to the statutory scheme and the common law principle that the power of adjournment lies with the assembly, not the presiding officer acting at will.

Conclusion: The adjournment was illegal and not binding on the meeting.

Issue (ii): whether the members who remained could validly continue the meeting and elect the petitioner as Chairman after such adjournment.

Analysis: Once the adjournment was found to be unlawful, the remaining members who had protested against it were entitled to continue the business for which the meeting had been summoned. The brief interval of about 15 minutes and the temporary absence of some members did not convert the resumed proceedings into a fresh meeting or establish surprise or fraud. The quorum requirement was satisfied when the business was transacted, and the mere physical presence of the Senior Vice Chairman in the room did not invalidate the proceedings where he had already declined to preside and unlawfully purported to adjourn the house. The election of the petitioner was, on the evidence, the lawful completion of the unfinished business.

Conclusion: The resumed meeting was valid and the petitioner was duly elected as Chairman.

Issue (iii): whether the Minister's order under section 242(2) of the Regulation was within jurisdiction and free from errors warranting certiorari.

Analysis: Section 242 of the Regulation empowered the State Government to ensure that municipal proceedings conformed to law and, in an election dispute between rival claimants to the same office, the function was necessarily quasi-judicial. The Minister therefore had jurisdiction to determine the dispute. However, the order was a speaking order suffering from patent errors of law on the face of the record: it omitted to decide the crucial question of the legality of the adjournment, misconstrued the nature of the resumed meeting, and wrongly treated the proceedings as invalid for want of quorum and continuity. Those defects made the order amenable to certiorari.

Conclusion: The Minister acted within jurisdiction, but his order was vitiated by manifest errors of law and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's election at the resumed meeting was upheld, the rival election was invalidated, and the impugned ministerial order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a presiding officer unlawfully adjourns a properly convened meeting contrary to the wishes of the majority, the remaining members may lawfully continue the unfinished business and any decision taken in the resumed meeting, if quorum exists when the business is transacted, is valid; an administrative order affecting rival claims to an elective office is quasi-judicial and is liable to certiorari if it contains manifest errors of law on the face of the record.

---