AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 299 wordsA counter-affidavit has been filed today.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the provisions of Section 54-A(2) and (3) of the Municipalities Act have not been complied with before the election of the Vice Presidents in question was held. Section 54-A(2) clearly requires that the meeting for the election of the Vice-Presidents should be held at the office of the Board and on the date and time appointed by the District Magistrate. In the instant case the meeting for the election of the Vice-Presidents was held on 29-2-1989. Admittedly the said date of the meeting for holding the election of Vice Presidents was not fixed by the District Magistrate as required u/s 54-A(2) of the said Act. It is also admitted that the District Magistrate in the instant case did not arrange with the District Judge for a stipendiary Civil Judicial Officer to preside at the said meeting held for the election of the Vice-Presidents of the Board as required u/s 54-A(3) of the said Act.
Under the circumstances mentioned above, in our opinion, the said meeting for holding the election of the respondents no 4 and 5 as Vice Presidents of the Board is wholly invalid and accordingly the resolutions electing the respondents No. 4 and 5 as Vice Presidents of the Board are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to call a meeting of the Board for the election of the Vice-Presidents of the Board within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him He shall also comply the other provisions of Section 54-A of the Municipalities Act in this regard.
With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.