( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 9 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2772 of 1988 (Reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1273) the appellants-original petitioners have come in appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the appeal briefly stated are as under: the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation is governed by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were duly elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the saiaid Corporation for the year 1987-88 for a period of one year. Since their term of office was to end after the said period respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Chapter II of Annexure A of the said Act convened a meeting of the Corporation to be held at 5-00 p. m. on 1-6-1988. Respondent No. 3 had claimed that since he was required to go to Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad for urgent work respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 31 informed the Deputy Secretary to instruct the Secretary Mr. Acharya to postpone the meeting. Accordingly Secretary Mr. Acharya issued a circular informing the postponement of the meeting scheduled to be held on 1-6-1988. It is claimed by the respondents that the said notice was served on members either personally or by delivery of the notice at their residence after obtaining signatures. In view of the said notice and circular postponing the meeting scheduled to be held on 1-6-1988 out of 51 Corporators 32 Corporators did not remain present and the Secretary and the Officers of the Corporation also in the said circumstances did not remain present on 1-6-1988. Nevertheless 19 Corporators of the opposite party remained present and held the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and in thahat election the appellants herein were elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor. When the e present appellants asserted that they should be allowed to function as Mayor and Deputy Mayor they were e not allowed to function by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 nor did respondents Nos. 3 and 4 hand over charge to the appellants as Mayor and Deputy Mayor. In the afaforesaid circumstances the appellants had approached this Court by the shove Special Civil Application praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the action of the respondent authorities adjourning the said meeting which was scheduled to be held on 1-6-1988 by virtue of the circular dated 1 annexed to the petition contending that it was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. The appellants had further prayed in the said petition for directing the respondents their agents and servants to permit the appellants to hold the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectivevely of the said Corporation and co-operate as such in all respects. There are consequential prayers also including the one for B direction that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 should vacate the office of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectivevely. The learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to reject the said petition as stated above. Hence the present appeal.

( 3 ) APPELLANT No. 1 has argued in person the case of the appellants before us. The first contention raised by him is that respondents were not right in adjuring the convened meeting as they have done and the aforesaid action being unauthorised and illegal should be declared as such and the appellants should be given reliefs accordingly. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that their own action of holding the meeting at the scheduled time and place should be held legal and all that was transpired at the said meeting held by them should be upheld and all consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.

( 4 ) IN support of their case appellants have put reliance on the decision in the case of Chandrakant Khaira v. Dr. Shantaram Kale and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1665. In the above case the facts in brief were that in the first meeting of the