PANDURANG NARAYAN ADHA Vs. RAMCHANDRA RPANDITRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are as follows: On 1 April 1928 a new District Local Bourd was constituted in Satara in place of the old Board whose term of office had expired. Defendant 2, who was the President of the old Board and the retiring President until a President of the new Board was elected, had issued notices on 31 March 1928, but dated 29 March 1928, convening a meeting of the newly constituted Board on 13 April 1928, for electing its President and Vice President for the next triennium. It is common ground between the parties that the notices were served upon all the members of the newly constituted Board except two who however had come to know independently that the meeting was to beheld and bad raised no objection on the ground that they had not received the formal notice from the Board. It is also common ground that every member of the newly constituted Board was present and took part in the election of the President and the Vice President at the meeting of the Board held on 13 April 1928, in pursuance of the notice although 14 clear days had not expired between the service of the notice and the date of the meeting. Plaintiff 1 stood for election at this meeting to the office of Vice-President but was not successful against the rival candidate who was elected. At the meeting of 13 April 1928 defendant 2 presided and the meeting proceeded to elect a Chairman. Defendant 3 was elected Chairman and took over the chair from defendant 2 who stood for re-election to office of President. After the Chairman had been elected, but before the business of the meeting was proceeded with the, plaintiffs lodged a protest that the meeting was not properly constituted because some of the members had not received 14 clear days notice. The Chairman overruled the objection and the plaintiffs participated in the business of the meeting under protest. Defendant 2 was re-elected President for the next triennium and a Vice President for the period was also elected.

(2.) The plaintiffs addressed a notice dated 30 April 1928 to: (1) The President, District Local Board Satara: (2) P.N. Adhav, Esquire, President elected in the meeting of the District local Board Sutara, held on 13 April 1928; and (3) Khan Bahadur D.B. Cooper, Chairman of the meeting of the District Local Board, Satara, held on 13 April 1928, for the purpose of electing the new President and Vice President of the District Local Board, Satara for the next triennium.

(3.) In this notice the plaintiffs alleged that the meeting of the Board held on 13 April 1928, was not in accordance with the requirements of Section 35(2)(b), Bombay Local Boards Act, that the work transacted at the meeting was invalid and that the newly elected office bearers at that meeting were not validly appointed and should not therefore act as such. Defendant 2 replied to this notice by his official letter No. L.F. 273, dated Satara, 31 May 1928, signed under his official designation "President, District Local Board, Satara."