Das Gupta, J. - (1.) The eight appellants were declared duly elected in the General Election for Commissioners of the Budge Budge Municipality that was, directed to be held in March, 1952. There were altogether twelve Commissioners to be elected one for Ward No. 1. one for Ward No. II. three for Ward No. III, four for Ward No. IV and three for the remaining Ward V. The appellants were declared duly elected as Commissioners for the single seat in Ward No. I, for two of the three seats in Ward No. II, for the four seats in Ward No. IV and for one of the three seats in Ward No. V. The four Commissioners that still remained to be elected were one for Ward No. II, one for Ward No. Ill and two for Ward No. V. When steps were being taken for election of these four Commissioners an order was passed by the State Government under section 553 of the Bengal Municipal Act, superseding the Commissioners of the Municipality. The material portion of the order is in these words : "In exercise of the power conferred by section 553 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, (Bengal Act XV of 1932), the Governor is, therefore, pleased to declare the Commissioners of Budge Budge Municipality to be incompetent and to supersede them for the period from the date of publication of this resolution in the Calcutta Gazette to the 31st March, 1953."
(2.) On the 30th March, 1953. another order was passed by the Government extending the period of supersession til the 31st December, 1953. The District Magistrate of 24-Parganas issued a notice in June, 1953, fixing the holding of the General Election for all the twelve commissioners on the 27 tit December, 1953, ignoring the fact that eight commissioners had been duly elected already, 'though their names had not been published in the Gazette and they had not entered on their offices as commissioners. Six of these appellants then brought a suit challenging the legality of the proposed election for all the twelve seats, asking for a declaration that the rights of the eight persons elected as elected candidates, still existed and for consequential orders of injunction.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit; but on appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and passed orders, the material portion of which is in these words : "It is hereby declared that the rights of the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants 4 and 5, were not affected by the order of supersession on the 26th July. 1952, or the order of extension of the same. Let a permanent injunction be issued against defendants 1, 2 and 3 restraining them from notifying any date for electing 12 fresh members for all the 5 Wards of the Budge Budge Municipality and the defendants be restrained from holding election of 12 members on the 27th December, 1953 as notified. Let a mandatory injunction be issued on the principal defendants to hold election under section 26, Rule 41 of the Bengal Municipal Act for filling up 4 seats, viz., 1 for Ward No. 1, 1 for Ward No. 3 and 2 for Ward No. 5 and also the names of the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendants be published under section 50 of the B. M Act.";