TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (4) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Nos. 2 and 3 are the Government of Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer. It appears that there are factions in this Committee, which are more or less evenly balanced, and these factions have been in existence for some time. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy which has been raised before us, it is necessary to narrate a few material facts. A casual vacancy arose for the chairmanship of the Ajmer Municipal Committee on the 18th October, 1958, when the resignation of Jwalaprasad, the outgoing Chairman, was accepted. A meeting was scheduled to be held both for considering the resignation of Jwalaprasad and for electing a successor to him for the same date, that is. the 18th October, 1958. The resignation of Jwalaprasad was accepted, but the election of the new Chairman was postponed obviously owing to short notice, and it was decided that a further meeting for the said purpose be called within ten days. The Senior Vice Chairman Zahoor Ahmed Zaid acted as chairman pending the filling up of the vacancy. The Senior Vice Chairman did not call any meeting up to the 23rd October, 1958. On the last-mentioned date, as he was absent from the station, the Junior Vice Chairman Lek....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10th December, 1958, and is annexure No. 1. 3. The Senior Vice Chairman thereupon called a meeting for the 17th December, 1958, at 4 P.M. by a notice dated the 16th December, 1958, (Annexure No. 2), for the election of the chairman. The total number of the members of this Committee is 32 and out of these 31 members were present at the meeting. One of its members Radheshyam Dani, obviously a member of the group of the Senior Vice Chairman, raised a point of order, which was this : "Whether in view of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, the Committee has got the powers to elect Chairman and to fill in the casual vacancy created on account of the resignation of the chairman under the provisions of the said section." 4. A member of the petitioner's group Kishen Gumani raised a counter point of order, namely, that the point of order raised by Radheshyam Dani was not in order, keeping in view the judgment of the High Court dated the 10th December, 1958. What happened at this meeting is contained in annexures A 1 and AMC 1. These annexures are the official notes prepared by a stenographer of the municipality of what had transp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by Kishen Gurnani and seconded by Omprakash Vajdya, and as there was no other proposal and all the 16 members present had voted for it, it was declared to have been carried unanimously, and the petitioner Deodutt was declared as the chairman of the Ajmer Municipal Committee. On the 18th December, 1958, the petitioner went to the office of the Committee to take over charge but the Senior Vice Chairman did not give it to him. On the other hand, the Senior Vice Chairman, respondent No. 1, called a further meeting for the 19th December, 1958, to elect a chairman of the Committee. The petitioner, having come to know of this, wrote a letter to the Collector (Annexure 7) and requested him to prohibit the meeting under Section 238 of the Regulation. The order of the Collector dated the 19th December, 1958, is Annexure No. 8. The main points made out in this order may briefly be summarized as follows : (1) At the meeting which was held on the 17th December, the group of the petitioner was in a majority, their total number being 16, the Senior Vice Chairman having the support of 14 other members only. (2) The only member who was absent was Suganchand who had made a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity or otherwise of the adjournment of the meeting held on the 17th December, 1958. 6. The result was that a meeting of the municipal committee as called by the Senior Vice Chairman for the election of the new Chairman was held at the office of the municipal committee on the 19th December. The petitioner and his supporters boycotted this meeting and respondent No. 5 Pratapchand Jain was elected as the chairman of the committee (vide Annexure No. A2). It is interesting to note that 16 members including Suganchand were present at this meeting and the Senior Vice Chairman disposed of the point of order raised by Radheshyam Dani on the 17th December, by saying that the authority of the High Court was supreme and that he had called the meeting according to the directions of the High Court and that the point raised by Radheyshyam required no comments from him and therefore he would overrule the point of order. 7. The position, therefore, is that both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 claim to be the duly elected chairman of the Ajmer Municipal Committee. Three members of the petitioner's group namely Arjundass, Moolchand Goyal and Gulabchand Sogani made a representation t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to give his evidence on the ground, first, that he had already filed a writ application before the High Court and secondly that the inquiry which was being conducted by Sri Puri was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. 10. The findings of Sri Shivpuri may now be briefly summarized as follows : 1. The Senior Vice Chairman, after he had reserved his ruling on the point of order raised before him, adjourned, the meeting, and the staff was directed to go. A number of municipal members also left; others however remained behind, sitting in the room. The Senior Vice Chairman riding that home of the members were still sitting in the room, continued to keep himself seated on the dais until the remaining members left, 2. As to the exact stage when Arjundas, a supporter of the petitioner, had left the Board room for the chairman's room to apprise the Collector as to what was happening at the meeting, there was some controversy, as, according to the Senior Vice Chairman, this incident should have happened after they had finally left the room, while according to the Junior Vice Chairman Lekhraj Thakkar and Arjun Das, this happened some time before the actual announceme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been borne out by any other oral or documentary evidence. The next question posed was that 14 members had left after the adjournment had been announced by the' senior Vice Chairman, and whether they could be denied the right to vote for a matter of such important character. The third point that was raised in the same connection was that when Arjundas and a few of his followers had left the board room, the house was not in quorum. To this, however, Sri Puri's answer as contained in his own report was that this was a very far fetched idea, and that during discussions, members generally left for one word or the other, and that all that was necessary was that the quorum must be there when the voting took place. Summing up the entire position in the last sentence oGBP his report, Sri Puri concluded that "the party of Shri Arjundas and Shri Lekhraj did meet, did consider the adjournment as illegal and went into the election of the chairman and elected Shri Deodutta." According to him however, it was a legal question for consideration whether this could be called a valid meeting of the committee, and Sri Puri further stated that counsel for the parties had agreed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas the enquiry officer held that after the adjournment by Senior Vice Chairman, the said 16 members met as a party that the Collector was then contacted and after the lapse of about 15 minutes these 16 members finding that the Collector would not interfere at that stage decided to convert themselves into a continuity meeting of the Ajmer Municipal Committee convened by the Chairman at 4 P. M. Whereas in view of these findings it is difficult to hold how the meeting at which Sri Deo Dutt is alleged to have been elected Chairman could be held to be a continuance of the meeting of the Ajmer Municipal Committee alleged to have been adjourned earlier by the Senior Vice Chairman, specially when a break of 15 minutes occurred during which period less than 18 members of the Ajmer Municipal Committee were present in the Board Room : Now, therefore, it is ordered that the so-called meeting at which Sri Deodutt is alleged to have been elected Chairman was not a meeting of the Ajmer Municipal Committee in conformity with law and Sri Deodutt therefore cannot be held to have been duly elected as Chairman by the Ajmer Municipal Committee and that since it has not been challe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r no obligation to act judicially and did not act as a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal and, therefore, it was not amenable to writ or order of certiorari. 16. The main points for determination which emerge out of the contentions referred to above are these : 1. Whether the meeting of the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, which was held on 17-12-1958 was lawfully adjourned by the Senior Vice Chairman, respondent No. 1. 2. If not whether the subsequent proceeding at which the petitioner was elected as a chairman, after the meeting had been unlawfully adjourned by the Senior Vice Chairman, was a lawful meeting, and the members who took part in it had a right to elect chairman at the same for which purpose the said meeting had been originally convened. 3. Whether the order of the Minister dated 21-1-3959 was an order within his jurisdiction and in any case whether the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Minister, and, therefore, cannot challenge it now? 4. Whether the aforesaid order is merely an administrative or a ministerial order, and, therefore is not amenable to a writ of certiorari? 5. If our conclusion be that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nection to several English and Indian authorities, and to some ol these, we would now refer. 21. In R. v. Electricity Commissioner 1924 1 KB 171, said Atkin L. J. (as he then was) : "Wherever any body of persons, having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially act in excess of their legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the Kings, Bench Division exercised in these Writs." 22. In Rex v. Legislative Committee of Church Assembly 1928 1 KB 411, Lord Hewart C. J. laid down that: "In order that a body may satisfy the required test, it is not enough that it should have legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; there must be superadded to that characteristic the further characteristic that the body has the duty to act judicially." 23. In the King v. London County Council 1931 2 KB 215, Scrutton L. J. observed as follows : "It is not necessary that it should be a Court in the sense in which this Court is a Court; it is enough if it is exercising after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Khushaldas' case, AIR 1950 SC 222 : "There need not be any hard and fast rule on such matters but the decision which the authority arrives at must not be his subjective or private opinion. It must be something which conforms to an objective standard or criterion laid down or recognised by law, and the soundness or otherwise of the determination must be capable of being tested by the same external standard." 26a. While there is hardly any scope for much dispute as regards the principles attracting the certiorari jurisdiction, the question of the application of these principles to a given case is often a matter of no small difficulty. To use the words of Mahajan J., as he then was, in Khushaldas' case, AIR 1950 SC 222 : "In the actual application of the abstract propositions to the circumstances of different cases the exercise of jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari varies according to the foot of the Chancellor." In other words, the question whether an act is judicial or quasi-judicial or purely executive or administrative will depend upon the terms of the particular rule and the nature and effect of the particular power in the exercise whereof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily involved in such determination. We should also like to point out here that it is not possible to decide this question upon the facts of any other case, because, as has been observed in AIR 1959 SC 107 on which learned counsel for the respondent strongly relied that the duty to act judicially may arise in widely different circumstances, and it would be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define them exhaustively. In the aforesaid case it was held that an order passed by the State Government under Section 53-A of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act (No. II) of 1922 appointing an executive officer for a certain period with certain powers was a merely administrative order, and that it was more a matter of policy rather than of a judicial determination and was, therefore, not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act but in administrative act. In our view, that case is entirely distinguishable from the case before us, and we are unable by any rational process of reasoning, to hold that the determination of the respective rights of certain claimants to an elective office like that of the chairman of a municipal committee or board is a matter which can be decided on mere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that they had clearly ruled that that section was not attracted into application in the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, there was no force in the point of order and it should be ruled out. 30. It may be pointed out here that the Senior Vice Chairman had the judgment of the High Court read out at the meeting in the very first instance, and on its last page the learned Judges clearly expressed themselves in the following words: "We accordingly hold that the Senior Vice Chairman did not act bona fide. He deliberately did not call a meeting of the Committee to elect a Chairman. There is no provision in the above Regulation similar to the provision contained in the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act authorising the Collector to convene a meeting to elect a Chairman. It cannot be said in the circumstances that the Committee failed to elect a Chairman in the manner prescribed by Section 13(2) of the Regulation. We accordingly direct that the Senior Vice-Chairman shall convene a meeting of the Committee to be held on 17th December, 1958, at 4 P.M. at the Municipal Office." The petitioner and also certain other members who were obviously his supporters more than once reque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the adjournment so ordered by the Senior Vice Chairman was lawful. 32. It is contended on his behalf that a difficult question of law had been raised for his decision at the meeting which he could not anticipate, that no member of the municipal committee could be prevented from raising such a point, and that as he did not feel equal to the task of giving his decision on the point of order so raised, he had the right to reserve his ruling, and consequently there was nothing left but that the house should stand adjourned as there was no other work on the agenda which could thereafter have been done. Our attention was invited in this connection to bye-law 12 of the Bye-laws framed by the Ajmer Municipality under Section 58 of the Regulation governing the holding of meetings, which lays down that the chairman shall regulate the course of all business to be brought forward, and shall decide all points of order and procedure; and also to bye-law 31 which provides that any member may submit any point of order to the Chairman but there shall be no discussion on any such point, unless the Chairman thinks fit to ask members present for their opinion thereon. All this however....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were Stoughton and Farren. The Vicar left before the election was completed and against the wish of many present and adjourned the meeting on the next day. Stoughton and his supporters remained behind and completed the poll as a result of which Stoughton was declared successful, Further developments took place but we shall have occasion to refer to them hereafter. Suffice it to say for the present that the question arose whether the Vicar had the power to adjourn the meeting. Lord Harwick answered this question thus: "The power must arise from the custom or common law. Here is no custom found, and I know of no book that shows how it stands at common law ................ Is the right of adjourning in the Churchwardens? There is no case for that though if there was, this is found to be the act of one only. We must, therefore, resort to the common right which is in the whole assembly where all are upon an equal foot." We think that the aforementioned principle correctly sums up the legal position and is in accord with Section 55 of the Regulation with which we are directly concerned. 36. Our attention was also invited in this connection to bye-law 33 of the Bye-law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of this case. There was scarcely any substance, therefore, in the point of order raised by Radheshyam Dani, and so far as we can see, the so-called point of order could have been decided without any trouble or hesitation at the meeting itself, and there was hardly any necessity for the Senior Vice Chairman who was acting as Chairman for the meeting to consult anybody in the matter. In fact, the Senior Vice Chairman decided the point of order which he had reserved, at the next meeting held by him on the 19th December, by saying no more than this that the point stood already decided for the meeting and, at any rate, for himself by the judgment of the High Court dated the 10th December, 1958. We are, therefore, convinced that the attitude adopted by the Senior Vice Chairman at this meeting was nothing but a pretext for adjourning the meeting and gaining time thereby, According to the report submitted by the Collector (Annexure No. S), the point of order raised by Dani was "frivolous" and the Senior Vice Chairman's action in taking it seriously and adjourning the meeting to get legal opinion on it "appeared to be mala fide". 38. Having regard to all the circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was totally unwarranted, and the hard fact was that "no such meeting ever took place". Therefore it was that this matter was referred for inquiry and report to Shri Pun, the Deputy Secretary to the Local Self Government Department. We have already summarised above the findings of Shri Puri as embodied in his report Annexure A.7. The finding of Shri Puri, briefly put, was that "the party of Shri Arjundas and Shri Lekhraj did meet, did consider the adjournment as illegal and went into the election of the chairman and elected Shri Deodutt." Earlier, Shri Puri had also observed that "it was true that after the meeting was declared adjourned, nearly half of the members present having gone along with the whole of the staff, 16 members did meet, decided that the adjournment was illegal and the remaining members had a right to continue the meeting as if no adjournment had been declared". Certain legal points were, however, further raised before the inquiry officer, and he made a reference to them in his report: these points being: (1) whether the Junior Vice Chairman could preside at the meeting in the presence of the Senior Vice Chairman; (2) whether the remaining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Committee, then, this finding seems to us, if we may say so without any disrespect, to be based on a misreading of the Enquiry Officer's report. If we were to sum up the finding of the Enquiry Officer in one sentence, it was this that after the Senior Vice Chairman had adjourned the meeting, the remaining members (who belonged to the party of Arjundas) had continued the meeting as a matter of fact, but whether this meeting was valid in law was a different question altogether and be left it for the decision of the Minister. Be that as it may, it is also pointed out in the order of the Minister that a break of 15 minutes had occurred in between the adjournment ordered by the Senior Vice Chairman and the further proceedings taken by the dissident members, and therefore, the further proceeding could not be a continuance of the meeting of the committee which had earlier been adjourned by the Senior Vice Chairman. A further reason for coming to the conclusion to winch the Minister did was that there were less than 16 members in the Committee present in the Committee Room during this interval, and, therefore, there was lack of quorum and in these circumstances the meeting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se to address ourselves to a few English and Indian decided cases which may serve as a guide for the decision of this interesting point. 44. The earliest case in this connection is that of (1736) 2 Stra 1045 to which we have already referred above. In that case a meeting was called for the election of a churchwarden and the Vicar who presided adjourned the meeting before the election was completed, contrary to the wishes of many of the parishioners present. The Vicar had nominated Chapman, and parishioners nominated Stoughton and Farren for the churchwardens. The result was that after the Vicar along with his supporters had left Stoughton and his supporters remained behind and completed the election. On the next day the Vicar and Chapman and his supporters met and continued the poll with the result that Farren was elected. It was- held that the right of adjourning the meeting was in the Parish and consequently he had acted wrongly when he had adjourned the meeting. It was further held that the meeting was rightly continued and that Stoughton was duly elected. 45. In National Dwellings Society v. Sykes, (1894) 3 Ch 159, a meeting of the society was called for the purpose of pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sired that the election of the auditors should be moved when it was pointed out to him by several shareholders that the next business was the election of directors. There was considerable uproar when the chairman declared the auditors elected, and thereafter he ruled that a certain notice which had been received on 21-2-1916, relating to the election of directors was out of order, and he declared the business to be closed and left the chair and the hall. Those remaining thereupon continued the business of the meeting and elected Catesby to the chair and some new directors were elected. The question arose whether the proceedings, after the chairman had vacated the chair and dissolved the meeting, were valid. It was held that the proceedings were regular and that the appointment of the new directors was valid. 47. The above cases clearly establish the principle that where a meeting has been unlawfully adjourned by the chairman and he has been neglectful of his duties, the remaining members do have the right to continue the meeting and finish the business which was left off untransacted by the chairman. 48. As against these cases, considerable reliance was placed before us on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting on that day or adjourn it for a subsequent date. If the Chairman unjustly and without the consent of the shareholders stops the meeting and declares it dissolved, it is perfectly within the powers of the meeting to elect a chairman and conduct the business remaining unfinished." 50. The next case to which we may refer is Ved Prakash Dusraj v. Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad 1951 Andh WR 22. This was a case which arose in the Secunderabad Municipal Corporation. An adjourned meeting of the Corporation was held on 20-7-1957. The mayor during the consideration of certain items of business stated that he had to attend another important engagement and so he was adjourning the meeting. Before the Mayor got down from the dais, a member pointed out that the Mayor could not adjourn the meeting without the consent of the members. The Mayor's attention was drawn to Section 88 (m) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (No. 2) of 1956 which, let it be noted, is exactly worded like Section 55 of the Regulation we have been called upon to consider in this case. Nevertheless the Mayor left. Some other councillors also left with him. Thereafter another member was elected to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n had been taken, had not been validly transacted according to the rules of the corporation, but with that further finding we are not concerned. 51. From the aforesaid view of cases, the following principles clearly emerge: 1. That once a meeting had been properly called and it meets the chairman of the meeting can only adjourn it with the consent of the majority of the members subject of course to the rules and regulations of the particular body in relation to which such a question might arise. Thus where a meeting, according to a statute or the rules under which It has been called, must have a certain quorum, and such quorum is not present, the chairman will have the authority to adjourn the meeting because in its absence no lawful meeting can be held. 2. In the absence of any rule to the contrary, the common law doctrine should be held to prevail that the adjournment of the meeting rests with the majority of the members present and is not a matter merely of the pleasure of the chairman. 3. An exception to the aforesaid rule which has been almost universally accepted is that where disorder breaks out at a meeting, the chairman has an inherent right, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 53. As against the last mentioned conclusion it has been strenuously pressed upon us that there was a break of 15 minutes between the adjournment ordered by the Senior Vice Chairman and commencement of the business by the remaining members thereafter, and that during this interval of 15 minutes or so, Arjundas, a member of the Committee along with one or two other members had contacted the Collector on the telephone, and on the Collector's refusing to intervene, had come back to the Committee room and informed the members of what the Collector had told them, and in the meantime some of the members of the Committee who apparently were the supporters of the Senior Vice Chair man's point of view had already left and, therefore, any further proceeding, such as election (or any other matter) which was carried on by the remaining members without notice to the departing members, was as if at a new meeting which could not be said to be a continuance of the earlier one, and whatever the remaining members did in such circumstances was a complete surprise to the other members and a fraud on them and, therefore, could not be upheld as valid. 54. We have given our most careful ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjournment of a meeting like this, the adjournment having been made the subject of vehement and persistent protests in no mistakable terms by the petitioner and his supporters, fully negatives the theory of surprise and fraud with respect to the members who had already departed, and, in our judgment, no further notice to the departing members of the intention of the remaining members to continue the proceedings was necessary in the eye of law. If we may say so, such a notice was almost implicit in this kind of proceedings, and whoever neglects it does so at his own peril. 55. It was also pressed before us in this connection that in order to resume the business after the meeting had been adjourned, there should have been a regular motion to continue the meeting before the house had adjourned and that the motion should have been in writing and duly seconded, and that the Enquiry Officer's report showed that no such motion had really been moved much less passed. We ore unable to accept the submission as correct, because if that were the correct legal view to take, the right of the remaining members to continue the meeting, where it has been illegally adjourned by the presid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the teeth of tremendous opposition. We may also point out that if the view contended for were to prevail, the presiding authority could always nullify the right of the members to continue the meeting, which may have been unlawfully adjourned by himself, and their right to lawfully transact the business which may have been left unfinished, by sheer obstinacy in not leaving his seat in the Committee Room even after he had unlawfully adjourned the meeting. Consequently, we overrule this contention also. 57. Summing up our conclusion on this point, therefore, we are firmly of the opinion that the true position in law is that the remaining members of the Committee after the meeting of the 17th had been unlawfully adjourned by the respondent No. 1 had a right to continue the meeting and transact the business for which the meeting had been called, and which business had been left untransacted, and, therefore, this meeting was lawful; and it must follow from this that the election of the petitioner at that meeting, which as a matter of fact, was found to have taken place both by the Collector as well as the Enquiry Officer, cannot but be accepted as having been lawfully made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e State Government may exercise all powers necessary for the performance of the duty aforesaid and may among other things by order in writing annul or modify any proceeding which it may consider not to be in conformity with law. There is a third sub-section also, but that is not material for our present purposes. 61. Now the first question is if a dispute as to whether the petitioner was lawfully elected as chairman of the Ajmer Municipal Committee at its meeting held on 17th December, or again, whether respondent No. 5 was duly elected to that office at a subsequent meeting held on the 19th December is a matter falling within the purview of this section. In other words, is it a proceeding of the committee which was required to be in conformity with law? We unhesitatingly think it is. A proceeding is a comprehensive word and cannot but embrace an election, such as that of a Chairman, or a meeting at which such an election is held. Now if a dispute is raised as to the lawfulness of such a proceeding, it is the duty of the State Government under this section to pronounce its decision upon it. We are, therefore, satisfied that a matter like this did and would fall under the jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into Sub-section (2). We are, therefore, not prepared to accept this interpretation as correct. 64. Again we think that the proceedings of a committee may be considered as falling under two broad heads. They may relate to certain things which are intended or proposed to be done. On the other hand, they may relate to certain things which have already been done, and are, therefore, completed acts. We do not see what useful purpose can be served by the Government asking the Committee to require in the case of completed acts that it must bring them in conformity with law. A necessity for this requirement can properly arise in respect of matters which may be intended to be due and are not fait acompli. It seems to us that sub-section (1) enunciates the duty of the State Government generally and is also intended to deal with acts of this last-mentioned category. Sub-section (2) in its first part further lays down that the State Government will have all powers which may be necessary for the performance of the aforesaid duty, and it further provides, obviously in relation to acts which have already been completed, that the Government may set them right and if necessary annul or modif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim to have been duly elected to one and the same office as that of a Chairman, the State Government has been placed under a statutory duty to see that the proceedings of the committee are in conformity with law and to annul or modify a proceeding which may not be in conformity with law. Again, for the due performance of this duty, all necessary powers have been vested in the Government, and this power necessarily includes the power to investigate facts or to entrust them for investigation and report to a duly appointed officer for the purpose as was done in the present 'case. We are, therefore, not prepared to hold that the Minister had no inherent jurisdiction to deal with this matter or that he has exceeded it. Consequently, we consider it unnecessary to go into the further question as to whether the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Minister or that he had even invited it and has thereby placed himself under a disability to question that jurisdiction any further. 67. This brings us to the question No. 5, viz. that if our conclusion be that the order of the Minister is of a quasi-judicial nature, does it call for any interference by this court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertiorari is not a remedy which can be granted only where an inferior tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, but it can also be granted when the decision of the inferior tribunal where the latter has embodied the reasons for its order, has made a "speaking order", and those reasons are bad in law. This case has been cited with approval in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, (S) AIR 1955 SC 233, where the law has been summed up in the following words : "It may, therefore, be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should, be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record." It was further pointed out that the real difficulty about the matter was not so much in the statement of the principle as in the application of it to the facts of a particular case, and if we may say so. with respect, there it is that the real difficulty lies. 72. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the order of the Minister is a "speaking order". In other words has he given any reasons for the conclusion to which he has come and can it be sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e telephone with the Collector, and thereafter they returned to the committee room and this state of affairs continued for some 15 minutes. That these remaining members had, therefore no right to continue the proceedings of the meeting is, in our considered opinion, again a manifest error of law on the face of the record having regard to the correct legal position we have propounded above with respect to the rights of the remaining members, who had vehemently protested against the unlawful adjournment capriciously ordered by the presiding chairman and had unmistakably displayed their desire that the election should be held at that very meeting and should in no case be adjourned to any other day. We have no hesitation in saying that the conclusion arrived at by the Minister, with all respect, would be tantamount to completely negative the rights which the members have under the statute and the principles of the common law which have been observed by the courts through all the countries since 1736. 75. In the third place, we have further to point out that the impugned order has also based its conclusion on the circumstance that during the 15 minutes interval which took place be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s was transacted. The well established parliamentary practice in this connection is that if the quorum is present at the beginning of the meeting, but if it is any one's grievance that it has fallen under the number required, then it is the duty of some of the members present to call the attention of the chairman to that fact by raising a point of order. If that is done, it is the duty of the chairman to have a count, and if there is no quorum, he usually gives some time to the members to be present in sufficient strength to form the quorum, but the chairman must adjourn the meeting, should there still be want of quorum. But once the quorum is complete at the time of the commencement of business and the attention of the chairman is not drawn to lack of quorum at any time thereafter, then the proceedings of the meeting cannot be held to be bad simply because at some later stage in the proceedings, it is alleged that the attendance of the members had fallen below the minimum number required. 76. We would point out here at the risk of repetition that this objection as to want of quorum was in the nature of a pure and simple afterthought, as the real stand of respondent No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Municipal Committee apparently belonging to the group of the petitioner, and that they had kept him at various places from the 10th December to the 17th December, 1958 and that he bad been prevented by these persons from attending the meeting on the 17th December. This allegation is hotly denied by Arjundas by his affidavit dated 31st March, 1959, he being one of the main persons involved in this incident. Arjundas in his counter affidavit emphatically contends that Suganehand's version against him and his alleged associates was absolutely false, and that although the incident is alleged to have taken place as early as the middle of December, 1958, the police had so far not interrogated him or his other friends who are alleged to have been associated with this incident. Suganchand's further affidavit in this Court is that an investigation by the police in this case was in progress and that the police had examined some five witnesses of his so far, and that they had asked him to accompany them to Kotah for further investigation. Two things stand out in this episode. First, that the name of Deodutt does not find any place in the first report which covers more tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that, that being so, any relief which the petitioner may get after the expiry of this period would be perfectly useless for him inasmuch as his term as a member-chairman is bound to expire with the expiry of the term of the Committee. It hardly needs any mentioning that any civil litigation which the petitioner may commence to establish his right would or could not possibly be brought to a conclusion in such a short period. We are, therefore, categorically of the view that the existence of an alternative remedy like that of a suit in the present case is and would be an entirely ineffective or inadequate remedy for the petitioner, and consequently this can hardly be accepted as any valid justification for our declining to give him relief to which he may be otherwise entitled. We unhesitatingly overrule this objection accordingly. 81. It was on the other hand contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Minister was a mala fide one, inasmuch as he bad acted in a partisan spirit and had assumed jurisdiction where he had none. It was also contended in this connection that the Minister should not have taken upon himself to decide this dispute when the petitioner had....