Skip to content


Hargovind Singh Vs. Vishnu Bhagwat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectElection
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 34 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1958MP32
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantHargovind Singh
RespondentVishnu Bhagwat and ors.
Appellant AdvocateHarihar Niwas Dwivedi and ;M.D. Maheshwari, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateHamid Ali Shah and ;Prakash Chandra Saxena, Advs. (for No. 8) and ;Inamdar Karkare and ;Shejwalkar, Advs. (for No. 1)
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredHiraumoy v. State of Assam
Excerpt:
- - inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction may constitute a good reason for declining to grant relief, hiraumoy v......no. 23 of 1956) came into force, whereby the municipality of gwalior acquired the status of the gwalior corporation on 29-10-1956. according to section 444 of the municipal corporation act, the mayor and the deputy mayor were elected. in this petition the election of the mayor is challenged on the ground that the election was not properly conducted and in consequence the elected mayor is the usurper of the office. 3. mr. inamdar, learned counsel for the opponent no. 1 had raised a preliminary objection to the effect that according to clause 2 section 443 of the corporation act, the councillors of the corporation were to continue in office until the expiry of one year from the date of the constitution of the corporation. it is submitted that according to para 2 of the petition, the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Abdul Hakim Khan, J.

1. This is an application for the issue for a writ of quo warranto.

2. The petitioner has stated that on 28th October 1956, the Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act (Act No. 23 of 1956) came into force, whereby the Municipality of Gwalior acquired the status of the Gwalior Corporation on 29-10-1956. According to section 444 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor were elected. In this petition the election of the Mayor is challenged on the ground that the election was not properly conducted and in consequence the elected Mayor is the usurper of the office.

3. Mr. Inamdar, learned counsel for the opponent No. 1 had raised a preliminary objection to the effect that according to Clause 2 Section 443 of the Corporation Act, the councillors of the Corporation were to continue in office until the expiry of one year from the date of the constitution of the Corporation. It is submitted that according to para 2 of the petition, the Corporation came into being on the 29th October, 1956, and that since the Councillors have ceased to exist because of the expiry of one year, it will not be proper to issue a Writ of quo warranto It is also urged that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has lately issued a notification dated 26-10-1957 (a certified copy of which has been shown to me and is placed on the record) whereby the Government has appointed the Collector of Gawlior as the Administrator of the Gawlior Municipal Corporation from 30th October, 1957, and that in the circumstances, the issue of a writ will serve no useful purpose.

4. Mr. Harihar Niwas Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the date given in para 2 of the petition is due to an oversight and that according to the Madhya Bharat Government Gazette dated 30-10-1856, the Gwalior Municipal Corporation came into being from the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette, namely, 30th October, 1956, and that there are yet 11 hours to go (the petition is being heard at 1 P. M. on 30-10-1957) before the councillors of the Gwalior Corporation would cease to exist. He submits that it is a fit case in which a pronouncement should be made as to whether the Mayor usurped the office or not. In support of his contention he has cited Maseh Uriah v. Abul Rehman, AIR 1953 All 193 (A); Kashinath Laxman v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 Bom 41 (B) and Krishna Rajeshwar v. Chief Secretary to the M P. Government, Police Dept., Nagpur, AIR 1954 Nag 151 (FB) (C). But I am afraid that none of the case is to trie point. It was not considered in any of these cases whether or not it is proper for the High Court to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto when the usurped person would himself vacate the office within a few hours.

5. After giving the matter the consideration it deserves, I am of the opinion that the preliminary objection should prevail. The issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto is in the discretion of the Court, and the prayer should be granted or refused according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rules can be laid down which can be universally applied. The peculiar facts of this case are that the Mayor was elected on 14th November, 1956, and now when there are only a few hours left, I am called upon to issue a writ of quo warranto. It will not be out of place to state that in issuing a writ and in exercising the discretion, the High Court should take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner. This election of the Mayor was challenged by the petitioner more than 10 months after the election had taken place. Inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction may constitute a good reason for declining to grant relief, Hiraumoy v. State of Assam, AIR 1954 Assam 224 (PB) (D).

6. My main reason for not exercising my discretion in the matter is that only a few hours are left before the Mayor shall make his exist and it will be futile to pass an order after giving a full hearing in the case, in which arguments are not likely to be over till tomorrow.

7. Mr. Harihar Niwas Dwivedi wants to address the Court on the merits of the case but it is absolutely futile and public time should not be wasted.

8. For reasons stated above, the petition forthe issue of a writ of quo warranto is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //