MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BOMBAY Vs. HORMUSJI MANECKJI CHOWNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia on a petition under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, calling upon the respondents, who are the Municipal Corporation of Bombay and the Municipal Commissioner, to show cause why they should not be restrained by an injunction from proceeding at a meeting of the Corporation to fill up one of two vacancies in the Corporation for B Ward in the circumstances set out in the petition, and why the 2nd respondent should not be directed to hold a bye-election for the purpose of filling up that vacancy. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge, and I do not think it necessary to detail them at length. It is sufficient to set out a few salient facts for the purpose of the decision of this appeal.

(2.) ELECTIONS to the Corporation of Bombay are held once every three years. At the election held in 1932, sixteen persons were elected to represent the B Ward, with which this appeal is concerned. One of these sixteen Councillors was Mr. Ramji Bharmal. He resigned his seat by his letter of November 15, 1934, addressed to the Municipal Commissioner. It appears that that letter was received on November 29, 1934, and that it was not considered by the Corporation until January 10, 1935, and was then recorded.

(3.) IN clue course, a General Election was held on January 22, 1935, and sixteen Councillors were elected for B Ward. Thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 (2) of the Municipal Act, the validity of their election was called in question. An enquiry was held by my learned brother Chitre, as Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, as he then was, and pursuant to that inquiry, he found that the election was not a valid election, and he set that election aside.