1959 Supreme(Raj) 98

Rajasthan High Court
Modi & Bhandari, JJ.
Deo Dutt Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Zahoor Ahmed Zaid - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1 of 1959
Decided On : April 24, 1959

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Art.227—Jurisdiction—Ajmer Merwara Municipal Regulation, Sec.242(2) — Dispute as to rightfully elected chairman—State Government decision quasi-judicial.(b) Municipalities—Ajmer Merwara Municipal Regulation, Sec. 55—Adjournment—Chairman can adjourn only with consent of house.(c) Municipalities—Ajmer Merwara Municipal Regulation, Sec. 55—Adjournment illegal—Members right to continue meeting.(d) Public Bodies—Meetings—Chairmans right to adjourn.(e) Public Bodies—Meeting—Quorum.

       The facts are that two persons claim to have been lawfully elected, each as chairman of the Ajmer Municipality, at two different meetings. There is there-fore, clearly a proposal and an opposition as each of those persons claims to have the right of functioning as the chairman of the Municipality. The question is whether in deciding as to their respective rights, or the matters upon which their rights depend, the duty of the State Government is merely to act administratively. Held that the duty of the State Government to act in a matter like this cannot be anything except quasi-judicial.

       A duty to act judicially, even where it is not expressly prescribed by law itself, may be necessarily implied therein by the very nature of the case, and where such a duty can be reasonably held to be so implied, the duty on the part of the Government or the tribunal would still be to act judicially. (Para 21)

       Where a meeting has been unlawfully adjourned by the chairman and he has been neglectful of his duties, the remaining members do have the right to continue the meeting and finish the business which was left off untransacted by the chairman (para 47).

       Once a meeting had been properly called and it meets, the chairman of the meeting can only adjourn it with the consent of the majority of the members: subject of course to the rules and regulations of the particular body in relation to which such a question might arise. In the absence of any rule to contrary, the common law doctrine should be held to prevail that adjournment of the meeting rests with majority of the members present and is not a matter merely of the pleasure of the chairman. An exception to the aforesaid rule which has been almost universally accepted is that where disorder breaks out at a meeting, the chairman has an inherent right, even if it has not been granted by statute or the rules, to adjourn the meeting, without consulting the majority. The exceptions apart, if the chairman adjourns a meeting contrary to the wishes of the members present and thereby interrupts or leaves unfinished the business for which the meeting was summoned, the remaining members can lawfully continue the business ; and in the absence of their proper chairman, it is open to them to elect another chairman to act as his substitute and continue the business, and any business which was duly notified in the notice for the meeting could be transacted to completion, and if it is so transacted it would be valid. Where; however, the adjournment has been ordered by the chairman, or it having been ordered the members have acquiesced in it. and thereafter it dawns on or strikes some of them to continue the business of the meeting, then such continuance should be held to be invalid as being a surprise or a fraud on the members who may have already left the meeting. (para 51).

       Once the quorum is complete at the time of the commencement of business and the attention of the chairman is not drawn to lack of quorum at any time thereafter, then the proceedings of the meeting cannot be held to be bad simply because at some later stage in the proceedings, it is alleged that the attendance of the members had fallen below the minimum number required (para 76).