BLR GOVIND SINGH Vs. CHIIEFF MUNICPAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the election of Shankerlal (respondent 2) as the President of the Municipal Council of Jora, a township in Morena district having a Class IV Municipality constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). For the election of the President and the two Vice-Presidents, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jora (respondent 12), bad convened a meeting for 24th June 1968. The petitioner, who is a voter registered in the electoral rolls of the Municipality, mainly called in question the legality of the meeting held on that date. Misc. Petition No. 286 of 1968 decided oa 21-8-1968. r/j.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated. THE general elections took place in April 1964 when the respondents 4 to 10 were duly elected as councillors. In their first meeting held on 30th June 1966, Sukhdayal (respondent 3) was elected as the President. That election was notified in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra on 22nd July 1966, when the respondent 3 entered upon his office as enacted in section 45 of the Act. He held office for a period of two years, as provided by section 43 (2) (a) of the Act. But even before the expiry of that period of two years on 21st July 1968, the respondent 12 called the impugned meeting for 24th June 1968, when, as already indicated, the respondent 2 was elected as the President of the Municipal Council. That election has been challenged on several grounds set out in paragraph 14 of the petition, but it is not necessary to notice them because the only ground pressed in support of this petition is that it was illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 43 (2) (b) of the Act to call a meeting for electing a new President before the expiry of term of office of the out-going President.

(3.) IT is well settled that an absolute enactment must be fulfilled exactly and that the act permitted by such an enactment is lawful only if it is done in accordance therewith without any departure therefrom. On the other hand, it is enough if a directory enactment is fulfilled substantially and the act so done is not rendered invalid for that reason. The question whether a provision of law is mandatory or directory was considered by the Supreme the Court in several cases including Banarsi Das v. Cane Commissioner, U. P. . AIR 1963 SC 1417 in which their Lordships recalled the statement of Maxwell and its application to earlier cases. They stated at page 1424 as follows:-