Ranawat, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Kalyan Chand against the Minister, Local Self-Government; Secretary to the Government, Local Self-Government Department; Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Ex-Officio Chairman of the District Board, Jaipur; and District Board, Jaipur.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was nominated a member of the provisional District Board, Jaipur, in August 1951 along with other members of the said Board, but subsequently the Minister in charge of the Local Self-Government Department on 10-4-1953 dissolved the provisional Board, of which the petitioner was a member and reconstituted it later on. The action of the Minister in charge in dissolving the Board was, it is said, mala fide. Three circumstances are mentioned in this behalf:- 1. that Kalyan Vidyarthi, who is the brother-in-law of the Minister-incharge of the Local Self-Government made an application to the Board on 2-6-1953 for a grant of Rs. 20,000/- as an aid for starting an institution for the backward classes but the Board did not accept his request. 2. that in the matter of making appointments on the posts of teachers and Vaidyas the Board did not select more than three persons from Dausa constituency and in the cases of others who were not so selected the said Minister must have been interested as he came from that very constituency. 3. that for a considerable length of time in spite of persistent requests of the members no meeting of the Board could be held on account of the fact that the said Minister had orally instructed the Director of the Local Self-Government Department not to hold any meetings.
(3.) The Minister in charge of the Local Self-Government it is stated had no authority under the law to order dissolution of the District Board and his order is therefore ultra vires. The Board could not be dissolved by the Government otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 of the Jaipur District Boards Act, which were not complied with in so far as no notice was given to the Board before its dissolution containing the grounds on which such an action had been contemplated. It was therefore prayed that by a writ of mandamus or prohibition the respondents 1 to 3 be ordered not to enforce the order of dissolution of the Board and to allow the dissolved Board to function till the expiry of its prescribed term or till it was dissolved or superseded in accordance with law and that the order of dissolution be quashed.;