( 1 ) THIS writ petition is concerned with the affairs of Jamnagar Municipality which is governed by the provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioners have challenged the validity of rules 45 and 46 framed under sec. 58 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 (which are also applicable to the Municipalities working under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 relating to the power of the Municipal President to adjourn a general meeting of the Municipality under certain circumstances. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order passed by the Collector Jamnagar District on 13-5-1970 under sec. 258 of the Act holding that the adjournment of the general meeting of the Municipality held on 4th March 1970 by the then Presiding authority one Mr. Madam was legal and hence the subsequent continuation of the said adjourned meeting by the rest of the members under the Chairmanship of one Mr. Radia and the resolutions passed in that continued meeting are illegal and void. The petitioners have further challenged the validity of sec. 258 under which the Collector had passed the above referred order. This sec. 258 of the Act empowers the Collector to suspend the execution of orders etc. of the Municipalities functioning under his jurisdiction under certain circumstances.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1. Dr. Kantilal J. Sanghvi is the President of the Jamnagar Municipality while the petitioner no. 2 Madhusudan C. Purohit claims to have been elected as the Chairman of the Secondary Education Committee in the disputed general meeting of the Municipality held on 4tb March 1970 under the chairman ship of above referred Mr. Radia. Respondent no. 1 is the Collector Jamnagar District while respondents nos. 2 3 and 4 are the councilors of the Jamnagar Municipality. Respondent no. 5 is the Chief Officer of the said Municipality.

( 3 ) A meeting of the general board of the Municipality was held ors 4 March 1970 as contemplated by sec. 51 of the Act. At that meeting the first petitioner who is the President of the Municipality was absent and therefore the vice-President of the Municipality one Mr. Hematlal R. Madam presided over that meeting. It is an admitted fact that 26 councilors of the Municipality attended that meeting. The record of the case reveals that after the meeting started and one formal resolution was passed the presiding authority proposed to take item no. 40 first into discussion. As against this one Bhikubhai Vaghela proposed that the first item should be first taken up for discussion. That proposal of Mr. Bhikubhai Vaghela was ruled out by the presiding authority. However Shri Bhikubhai persisted in his proposal and insisted that he was willing to cite a rule in support of his proposal. Thereafter as the presiding authority proceeded further with the conduct of the meeting one Mr. Radia one of the councilors present there raised a point of order. Thereafter other councilors also tried to raise points of order. The presiding authority Mr. Madam thereupon found that further proceedings of the meeting were not possible as councilors were shouting against each other. He therefore adjourned the meeting. It is further that one councilor Mr. Dalsukhbhai who was also present the meeting drew the attention of the presiding authority that he had power to adjourn the meeting. It is said that he requested the presiding as well as other councilors not to withdraw from the meeting. Mr. Madam adjourned the meeting and left the place. It is said he had adjourned the meeting sine-die. On this adjournment 14 including the presiding authority left that place. But 12 who remained there decided to continue the meeting. By this time two of the councilors who had already left the meeting returned and joined the remaining 12 councilors. This made up the quorum with the result that all these 14 councilors then proceeded with the business of the meet