( 1. ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former President of the Municipal Council, mungeli, seeks a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order, dated 17-11-1973 (Petitioners Annexure-B) ordering the tahsildar, Mungeli, to take charge of the Municipal Council under section 328 (6) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 as the term of the Municipal Council expired on 14-5-1973, as per section 36 (3) of the act. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order, dated 17-11-1973 on the ground that the said order was beyond the powers conferred on the State government. It is further prayed that the State Government, by a writ of mandamus, be directed to extend the term of the Municipal Council, as per the proviso to section 36 (1) of the Act.

( 2. ) THIS Municipal Council has rather had a chequered career. The general elections were held on 16-12-1968. The first meeting of the Municipal Council was convened on 15-5-1969, in which the petitioner was elected as the President. He took over charge of the office of the President on 21-6-1969. Thereafter on 30-6-1971, that is, after about two years and a week, the State Government dissolved the Municipal Council in exercise of powers conferred by section 328 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Against the order of dissolution the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 380 of 1971. A Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 3-12-1971, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the State Government dated 30-6-1971. In consequence the petitioner again took over charge of the office of the President on 6-1-1972.

( 3. ) THEREAFTER on 5-10-1972, the Municipal Council, Mungeli, was again dissolved for the second time under section 328 of the Act. Against that order of dissolution the petitioner again filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 855 of 1972. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 12-9-1973 allowed the writ petition and again quashed the order of dissolution, dated 5-10-1972. In consequence, the petitioner again took over charge of the office of President on 27-9-1973.

( 4. ) THEREAFTER, the State Government issued the impugned order (Petitioners Annexure-B) on 17-11-1973 holding that the term of the Municipal council had already expired on 14-5-1973, as per section 36 (1) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, because the first meeting of the Municipal Council had been convened on 15-5-1969, as per section 55 (2) of the Act. As the term automatically expired and the Councillors and the office-bearers could not function, the State Government, by the impugned order, appointed an administrator or a reliever to take charge of the affairs of the Municipal council during the interim period till fresh elections were held. It is this order that the petitioner now challenges in this writ petition.

( 5. ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Act provides for continuance of the Council for a period of four years from the date appointed under sub-section (2) of section 55 for its first meeting. The suggestion, therefore, is that the Municipal Council should actually be allowed to function for a period of four years and if there be any disturbance or interference in the shape of passing of illegal or unconstitutional orders by the State Government, the period so spent should be excluded and the Council should be allowed to function for the full period of the term of four years by excluding such periods. In this connection we might observe that there is a difference between similar provision in the central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, and the present provision as contained in section 36 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Under section 16 of the 1922 Act, the State Government had been given power to fix the term of the Municipal Council, which could, in no case exceed the per