( 1 ) AN important question relating to the convening of a statutory ordinary general meeting of a municipality constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 (the Act) namely whether the President of a municipality having convened a meeting has the power to cancel or adjourn the meeting unilaterally before the councillors assemble at the appointed hour without the consent or against the wishes of the councillors at his pleasure acting on his own is raised by a councillors of Anand Municipality in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) BY a notice dated January 15 1974 the President of Anand Municipality (called Municipality hereafter) issued a notice convening a meeting to transact 46 items of business specified in notice Annexure A. The meeting was convened for January 24 1974 Two days before the scheduled date of meeting i. e. on January 22 1974 the president of the Municipality issued a notice informing the councillors that having regard to the situation obtaining in the city the meeting scheduled to take place on January 24 1974 should take place on February 5 1974 On February 5 1974 the District Magistrate issued an order under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure D) prohibiting the assembly and movement of more than five persons within the specified locality. By this order the members of the public were restrained from entering the municipal office premises but it was clarified that the order would not apply to Municipal councillors and municipal employees. He also made it clear that curfew permits would be issued to the municipal councillors and to the employees in order to enable them to assemble at the meeting scheduled to take place at 4-00 p. m on that day. It appears that at about 2-00 p. m. the president of the Municipality (respondent No. 2) took a mental decision to postpone the meeting and issued a circular addressed to the Municipal councillors. At the material time there were 35 elected councillors. Out of them 20 councillors refused to endorse or take cognizance of the circular addressed by the President to them giving intimation as regards the postponement of the meeting. At 4-00 p. m. at the appointed hour 20 councillors assembled in the lobby of the Municipal Hall. The President and 14 other councillors were not present. As the President was absent the Vice-President presided at the meeting. The meeting took place as scheduled at 4-00 p. m. Several items of business including the business of electing the Executive Committee and various other committees were transacted at the meeting. Thus the 20 councillors who were present elected the members of various committees not withstanding the fact that the President and 14 others were absent. The petitioner who is one of the councillors who were absent has challenged the legality and validity of the business transacted at the meeting of February 5 1974 inter alia claiming a declaration that the business transacted at the meeting of February 5 1974 was illegal and unauthorized and that the meeting was not a duly constituted meeting. He has also claimed an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from treating the business transacted at the meeting as valid.

( 3 ) THE first question and the one which goes to the root of the matter is as to whether the meeting presided over by the Vice-president at 4-00 p. m. on February 5 1974 was a validly convened meeting and whether the business transacted thereat had been validly transacted. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though that notice convening the meeting of the Municipal councillors for transacting the Specified business bad been issued by the President on January 15 1974 inasmuch as an intimation was given to all the councillors at 2-30 p. m. i. e. some 1 1/2 hours before the appointed hour of the meeting that the meeting will not take place it was not open to the Vice President and the is other councillors to h