Judgment-

M. H. KANIA

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) AS a substantial point of law is involved in this case, we have granted special leave and the Appeal is being taken up to hearing with the consent of the parties. The Appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court (reported in 1989 (1) Guj LH 151), allowing the writ petition filed before it.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this Appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :

APPELLANTS Nos. 1 and 2 are persons elected in 1987 as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectivevely of the Municipal Corporation of Bhavnagar, Respondent No. 5 herein (referred to in the judgment as "the Corporation" ). Appellant No. 3 is the Secretary of the said Corporation. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are persons claiming to have been elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Cororporation at a meeting held on 1/06/1988, the validity of which is disputed before us.

( 4 ) THE Corporation came into existence in 1982. The elections to the Corporation were duly held in 1985 and 51 members were elected. On 30/06/1987, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 were duly elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectivevely of the Corporation for a period of one year. On 21/05/1988, a notice was issued by appellants Nos. 1 and 2 to convene a meeting of the members of the Corporation at 5. 00 p. m. on 1/06/1988 to elect a Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Cororporation for the second term and for certain other business mentioned in the Agenda circulated. On 31/05/1988, appellant No. 1 gave instructions by a letter to the Deputy Secretary of the Corporation to postpone the meeting of the Corporation as appellant No. 1 had to go to Gandhinagar for a certain urgent work of the Corporation. It seems clear from the record that the said instructions were given by Appellant No. 1 after consulting 32 members of the Corporation, presumably those belonging to his own party. Pursuant to the said letter and the instructions contained therein appellant No. 3 issued a letter addressed to the members of the Corporation that the meeting /scheduled for 1/06/1988 had been postponed. The said letter was circulated to all the members of the Corporation. In spite of the said letter postponing the metting, 19 members of the Corporation, presumably belonging to the minority party or parties assembled at the place indicated in the notice dated 21/05/1988 and elected respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Cororporation respectively. At the said meeting neither the Commissioner of the Corporation nor the Secretary or Deputy Secretary was present and the minutes of the said meeting were not recorded by the Secretary of the Corporation. As appellants Nos. 1 and 2 did not hand over the charge to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the latter filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 2772 of 1988 in the Gujarat High Court for being declared as legally elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Cororporation respectively and for an order that charge of the said post should be handed over to them. On 9/06/1988, the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court. The learned single Judge, who dismissed the said writ petition, took the view that, as the Mayor in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-cl. (c) of Cl. I of Chap. II of the Schedule (under S. 453) in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") can issue a notice for convening the meeting, he is also entitled to the power to cancel or rescind the notice under the provisions of S. 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. It was held that appellant No. 1, as the Mayor, was exercising a statutory power vested in him and could, therefore, cancel the notice and postpone the meeting convened by him before the meeting was held. It was pointed out by him that in the history of the Corporation meetings had been postponed by the Mayor in the same manner. The learn