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. 3-8 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 R. 1(h), Chapter II of the Rules framed under S. 453 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

2. Since the question involved was a matter of moment and the affidavits filed by the petitioner Chandrakant Khaire, the leader of the Shiv Sena Party which is the largest single group in the Corporation consisting of 18 Councillors, and by some of the Councillors as well as their supporters, and the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Party-in-power Congress-I which has formed a coalition with the splinter groups commanding a majority of 32 Councillors in a House of 60, raise controverted facts as to whether the proceedings of the meeting had been adjourned sine die or merely suspended, we thought it better to have the minutes of the proceedings before us. Shri Vinod Bobde, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Commissioner has placed the minute books written in Marathi along with a translation thereof in English. At the last occasion we were left with the impression that the word used by the Municipal Commissioner was tahkub while adjourning the meeting at 2.45 p.m. amidst unprecedented scenes of complete disorder, commotion and pandemonium. We now find the word used in the minutes is sthagit but in the translation furnished the word used is adjourned.

3. The facts revealed in the counter-affidavit filed by the Municipal Commissioner, Collector and the Superintendent of Police show that a serious law and order situation had arisen due to which both the Collector and the Superintendent of Police had to rush to the venue of the meeting. They both have sworn to the fact that not only the Councillors but many outsiders were present in the hall where the meeting was being held. There were also a large number of supporters of the rival parties, spectators and journalists. The Municipal Commissioner was surrounded by some 20-25 persons apart from the Councillors, one group insisting upon the meeting being adjourned for the day i.e. the Councillors belonging to the majority Shiv Sena Party while the other group consisting of the Congress-I Party and the splinter groups forming the coalition demanding that the meeting be continued. The Collector has sworn to the fact that there was total confusion and bedlam inside the hall apart from the fact that the entire atmosphere was surcharged with commotion and no business could be transacted. He has further sworn to the fact that respondent No. 9, the Municipal Commissioner, the presiding officer, appeared to be in a very agitated state of mind and told him that he could 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. onwards.

4. What happened thereafter reveals a very disturbing feature which unfortunately has b