The State of Bihar v. Kumar Amar

The first respondent-Municipality-governed by the Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) consists of 32 ·councillors, S, (the appellant) being one of them. The last general The -election to the Municipality took place on the 7th May 1951. term of the councillors was the first three years computed from In that meeting held on 10th July 1951 after the general election. 'meeting the 4th and 5th respondents were elected President and - Vice-President respectively for a term of three years. Act XVIII of 1925 was amended by Bombay Act XXXV of 1954 under which the term of office of the councillors was extended from 3 to 4 years end -'ing on 9th July 1955. As the term of respondents 4 and 5 was to ·expire at the end of three years from the 10th July 1951 and as the term of the Municipality was extended by one year under Amending Act XXXV of 1954 a fresh election of President and Vice- -President was necessary to fill up the vacancies thus occurring. The Collector called a special general meeting for the 30th July 1954 to elect a President and Vice-President for the remaining period of the quadrennium and nominated the Prant Official (the District Deputy Collector) the 30th July 1954 the Prant Officer adjourned the meeting to the 3rd August 1954 under ·instructions from the Collector without transacting any business. "The objection raised by respondent No. 3 against the adjournment ·was overruled by the presiding Officer. The special general meeting was held on the 3rd August 1954. An objection raised by S (the :appellant) that under the provisions of the Act a President could not -be elected for a term less than a year was overruled by the presiding Officer. On this 13 councillors (including S) out of the 32 who were present walked out on to be •elected for- a term less than a year contrary to the provisions of the Act. The remaining 19 councillors elected the 2nd respondent as ·the President for the remaining period of the quadrennium. Immedi ·.ately after that another me~ting presided over by the newly elected President elected respondent No. 3 as Vice-President. The same point of order raised by S as in the case of the President was over ruled, on which 6 councillors walked out and the meeting was held "by the remaining councillors. All the 32 councillors were present both on the 30th July 1954 and the 3rd August 1954. Ao applica tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution presented by S questioning ·rhe validity of the meeting of the 3rd August, 1954, and consequently ·the validity of the election _of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as President and Vice-President for the remaining period of the quadrennium was dismissed by the High Court. the ground that the President was 'Held, (1) that the meeting' of the 3rd Artgust 1954, in substance though not in form, complied with the requirements of the law for 'holding a valid special meeting and therefore the meeting was not invalid because the record of proceedings would show that ·whatever "had been done on the 30th July 1954 and the_ 3rd August 1954 had been done under the orders of the Collector. The notice to the coun <:illors required under s. 35(3) of the Act satisfied the requirements •of three cleat days, that the provisions: of s. 35(3) regarding the ser- c•1955 'Shyab1Uidinsab 'Mohidinsab ~Akki "'T-he' Gadat-Be_tgen Municipal Borough aM otliers ., 1270 SUPREME' COURT''REPORTS [1955) ... vice ·Of n6tice·· are .. fOirecto:ry:··aridi-not'1rn-a.rld!i.toty;i::andnthavH1ny omis~ > r ··sions in· the manner'·bf service-·of the··nOtice are 'mere irregularities "".rhich would not vitiate "the proceedings unless it is :shown that those ; irregularities ·had prejudicially affected the · proceedings which had ·All the councillors not been alleged or proved constituting the Municipality were present on both the occasions namely the 30th July 1954 arid the •3rd 'August 1954 and thus had ample notice of the meeting to be held· on the 3rd August 1954, ·the ·'time ·arid ·plate· 6£ the meeting and the busint:ss to be transacted, That under the provisions of s. · 35(3) of the Act the presence at or the absence from· the meeting of the members of the' public has no 'legal consequence so far as the validity of the election is concerned; in the present case. "'?- ~ -... (2) that as s. 19 of ·the Bombay-Borough,.Act, (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) had been amended · by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, •1954· (Bombay Act• LIV of 1954) .and· was retrospec tive in its operation, .it had 1 the •effect .of curing any illegality or irregt.ilarity·-in the· election with reference to .. the provisions of s. 19 of the Act and therefore respondents· Nos .. 2 and 3. had been validly elected as ·President •and Vice-President, respectively. King v . . The .General Commission-ers of" Income-tax rfor ··souih ampton, Ex pane W. ;M. Singer ([1916] 2 K.B.'249)·and Mukerjee, .Qfficial ."Receiver v. Ramratan Kuer ([1935] L. R. 63 ·I. A.· 47), referred tO. · CrvrL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : ·Civil Appeal 'No. : 215 of 1954. Appeal ·hy '·Special Leave' from ·the Judgment arid Order 'dated . the 23rd day of 'August 1954 of the High Court of Judicature .at Bomb; iy in Special Civil. Appli . cation No. 1665· of 1954 under Ar~icle . .226 of the Con . stitution ·of India. R . . :B. 'Kotwi:tl, I '.B. Dadachanji _and , Rajinder Narain, for·the appellant. • • Naunit:Lal,. for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. .).. i

#1955. Eebruary 22. .The Juc.lgment .of .the .Court was delivered by .SINHA • J.-This is ·an·.appeal-by. special.leave ·against t the judgment and •order <'dated 'the 23rd August 1954 of the "High 'Court of I Judicature at 'Bombay, dismis sing . the appellant's .petition for a writ of quo warrantr> or any other appropriate writ "directed , against ,election of tihe •2rid .,and ·Mice, Presi'dent respectively of ·.the • Gadag-Berger? .and 3rd •respondents ·as .President ~"- 1955 S Shyabuddinsab . . Mohidinrab Akki v The Gadag-Betgeri · Munricipal Borougho , and otherr ·Sinha]. :S.C.R. .,SUPREME. COURT,REPORTS 1271 ·-«, .. . .i... ~ constituting .-MuniJ:ipal (8or-ough, .. the 1st , respondent tin this, ,appeal. The .facts· of this case are not in .dispute ,,and may ,,shortly be stated .as follows : The 1st respondent is a municipality .governed by the provisions of the Munici •rpal Boroqghs -Act (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) which , hert; inafter . shall be referred .to as the Act for the, sake '1 • of brevity. The appellant is one of the 32 councillors general the municipality. The election to the municipality took place on the 7th May · 1951. ·The term , of ·the _councillors 1 was three years computed from the date of the first general meeting held after the general election aforesaid-in this case In that meeting the 4th and 5th the 10th July 1951. elected President and Vice-Presi- respondents were . dent respectively of the municipality for a term of , three years. The Act was amended by Bombay Act XXXV of 1954, under which the term of office. of the councillors was extended . from 3 to 4 years ending on the 9th July 1955. As the term of respondents 4 and 5 aforesaid . was to expire at the end of three years from the 10th July 1951 and as the term of the munici- the amending ~pality was extended by one year under the vacancies thus occurring had to be filled up by ,a . fresh election of President and Vice-Pre sident. The. Collector therefore called a special general meeting of the municipality to be. held on the 30th July 1954 to elect a President and Vice-President for the remaining period of the quadrennium. The Collec (the District Deputy Collector) to preside over that special general the Prant Officer meeting. On . the 30th July 1954 under instructions from transacting meeting to the 3rd August 1954 without any business, the only item on the agenda being .the election of the President and Vice-President. ,The 3rd respondent raised a point of_ order against the adjourn ment but the presiding _officer aforesaid overruled that .meeting . was objection. _Hence held on the 3rd August 1954. At that meeting appellant raised a point of order that _under the , provi- sions of the _Act a -president could not be elected for the Collector adjourned the Prant Officer special general nominated t-, Act aforesaid, -~- _ _, 1955 Sll)'abuddinsab Mohidinsab Akki v. Tht Gadag-Betgeri · Municipal Borough and others Sinha J 1272 -,... .., therefore that objection to participate ' that they did not propose SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1955] , ... the · pre>· a ·term less than a year and that posed election would be in the teeth of those provi sions. The presiding officer who was the same person the 30th July who had adjourned the meeting on 1954 overruled too. Thereupon 13 out of the 32 councillors who were present walked out on the ground the proposal · was to elect a in which in a" meeting President ·for less than a year contrary the provi sions of the Act. The appellant was one of those 13 councillors who walked out. It may be added the full strength of the municipality is 32 councillors all of whom were present 'both on the 30th July 1954 and the 3rd August 1954. The remaining 19 council- transact business and elected lors proceeded the proposal being the President, 2nd respondent as that he "should be President of the municipality for the remaining period of Immediately the President another meeting was held for the election of the Vice-President under the presidency of (the 2nd respondent). The appellant raised the same point '-• of order as he had done· in the case of the election of that was also overruled. There the President and upon six of. the councillors present including the ap pellant walked out and councillors elected the 3rd respondent as the Vice-President: the proposal which was · carried. the election of the newly elected President the quadrennium" and remaining .-'- .. _>. The appellant moved. the High cOur.t o~ ·Bombay under art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ .of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ or order or directioi: against ,the 2nd af\d 3r.d respondents. "res the office of ,the Presi train.ing them from usur.ping dent . il"d .Vice' President . respectivelY. .· of the opponent No. 1 Muni, cipality and restraining them from perform- ing · any d.uties and from . exercising any powers 1s Pr~sident and V,ice-President, respectively". The High Court held that the election of the 2nd and 3rd res poI\dents. ~as '1\ot illegal . and disII).issed · tfi.e . application. that on a proper cons.tfl!ction of· the relevant It held to say that provisions of the Act it was not correct the term of office of the councillors or of the newly J ... 1955 Shyabuddinsab Mohidinsab Akki v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1273 the Vice-President " "elected President and Vice-President shall end with that the intention was to elect the the 9th July 1955; President and remaining term of the municipality which was not only a period of four years certain but an additional period up to the date when new President and Vice-President ~ would be elected and take over after a fresh general ...- election; that the adjournment of the meeting of the 30th July was not beyond the powers of the presiding officer; and that consequently the meeting of the 3rd It was August was not vitiated by any also pointed out by the High Court ·that all the coun cillors constituting adjourned meeting and did as a matter of fact attend that meeting and that even if there was any irregu larity in the adjournment on the 30th July 1954 that did not affect the illegality of the adjourned meeting and the business transacted therein. the municipality had nofr:;:: of illegality. _... The appellant moved the High Court for leave to appeal this court but that application . was reject ed. The appellant then applied to this court for spe the 3rd cial leave to appeal which was granted on t' September_ 1954. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the meeting held on 3rd August 1954 as aforesaid was invalid for the reasons :

#1. that it was not an adjourned meeting inas- much as the meeting of the 30th July 1954 had not been validly adjourned,

#2. that it had not been called by the Collector, • --<-

#3. that required by the written notice section 35(3) had not been given and in any event, had not been served and published as required by law. Secondly it was urged that the meeting of the 3rd August being thus invalid, the business transacted at the President that meeting, namely, was equally invalid. Thirdly it was urged the meeting the President being invalid, election of held that very day under the presidency of the Presi- -~~ dent thus elected was also invalid and the election of It was the Vice-President consequently was the election of illegal. 1274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1955] i 19·55)\ ShjabulfdinSab_ Mohidinsabr Akki b. v •. The; Gadag-Beigm \ Municipal Borough.A. amt.others·~ Siriha~.J.: further argued' that the .election •1 of the President· and the· V:ice~President being.: in . violation of section 19 of the·· Act:. was invalid. on that ground also; and finally, that · the amendment of section 19 by· the amending . Act LIV · of. 1954 ' after to appeal had been granted· by·· this court could.· not affect;. the present proceedings ·which were· then pending even· though the amending.•Act purported to .make. it:·retrospective~. to validate in terms was meant On behalf of· respondents l," 2 and '.3 who only have appeared. in this' court, it has been urged that a Presi dent and · Vice-President could be elected for a term of less than one year as section 19 of . the Act was . subject to section 23 ( 1) (A) ; that in any view of matter, , section 19 as amended by the amending Act · LIV of . 1954 rendered the election beyond question as .all' elections the Act held between the passing of. the amending Act XXXV of 1954 and the amending Act LIV of 1954; that the presiding officer· had inherent, if not statutory power to adjourn the meeting of· the 30th July 1954 and that ' in any· event·: the· meeting held on the 3rd August 1954 could be treated ·as a fresh meeting . called by the Collector and notice or in· the appointment of· the presiding officer was· cured by the provisions · of section 57' of the Act. It was also argued that councillor who had' objected to the adjournment of the meeting of the 30th July and-' could·· not' therefore object to it at a later stage. Finally: it·· was argued that' the appellant· had" no right to a•· writ or order prayed for as he had not been injured the appellant was · not in any sense. in serving· irregularity that any It • would thus- appear there are· two main' questions in controversy .. between the, parties, namely, (1) whether· the- meeting-of the· 3rd August, 1954 had been validly held; ·and (2) whether the president and, the vice-president having been· elected. "for; the remaining period of. the quadrennium" had; been validly elected, There are a · number ·of subsidiary · questions bearing upon· these- two' main· questions which h:\ve been can vassed before"'us:· )· 1955,,. Shyabuddinsnb ,, Mohidinsab·-Akki • v. Th£ Gadag-Betgeri-. Munifipal Bnrough • and. othtrs . Sinha,]. S.G.Ri. SUPREME~COUR'f· REPOlliTS• 1275 A good deal!ofrargument was addressed to us con tending that the presiding. officer had no power to .. ad-· in view of· journ the meeting• of the 30th July, 1954 In this ~ the provisions of section .35 ( 11) of the Act. connection reference was" also made. to .• the proviso,. to .. section 19-A(2). Those provisions, it was, argµed,'., point to the conclusion that the powers of the presid ing officer . are• the same as . those of the ·president ·of a. municipality when presiding, over an ordinary meeting of the municipality except that section,. 35(11) relat-: ing to adjournments had been qualified only to this extent by the proviso aforesaid, that the Collector ·or '. the officer presiding over · the meeting for the purpose . of holding an. election of the president or r vice-presi de.rJ.t: may refuse to 1 adjourn such a , meeting, in. spite of the wishes · of the · majority. of the members present that· the High It was also argued to- the contrary. court had wrongly taken the view that the. presiding. officer had the inherent right to adjourn the meeting. Reference was made to certain passages in · "The Law of Meetings" the Practice of by Head, "The Law . on Meetings" by· Shackleton, and "Company. Meetings'1 by Talbot. the· purpose of. this case to pronounce upon the merits of that controversy in the view we• take of the meeting of the 3rd August, 1954, assuming that the meeting of1 the 30th July, 1954 had been adjourned without authority. In our opinion, it is unnecessary. for t' the Collector the· provisions It is common ground that it was the Collector who called the meeting of the 30th July 1954 and that it• that· was under instructions meetjng was adjourned. Under section 23 ( 1 )(A), on the expiry of· the term of office . of the president. or vice-president as determined by the municipality under section 19(1) of. the Act, a new president- or vice-president shall be elected with in 25 days from the date of such expiry. The provi sions of section 19-A which relate to the procedure for, calling a meeting of a, newly constituted municipality the election of a president and. vice-president have·· the calling. of a meeting and· been made applicable to the · the procedure to be followed · at such' meeting. for 1955 Shjabuddinsab Mohidinsab Akki v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. · 1276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1955f 19-A requires instructions the same powers as the Collector for In the proceedings of election of a president. Section Collector to call a meeting for holding such an elec tion. ·Such a meeting shall be presided over by Collector or such officer as the Collector may by order in writing appoint this behalf. The Collector or his nominee, when presiding over such a meeting, shall have the president of a municipality when presiding over a meeting of municipality has, but shall not have the right to vote. On the 30th July, 1954 a special general meeting had the election of been called by President; that meeting it has been recorded that "Under instructions from the Col lector of Dharwar the presiding authority adjourns the meeting to i 3rd August 1954 at 3 P.M.". At that meeting all the 32 councillors were present and ad their presence the presiding officer declared mittedly in openly the meeting will be held on the 3rd August 1954 under the Collector concerne<l. When the meeting was held on the 3rd August 1954 at 3 P.M. as previously notified, again the councillors were present. The proceedings show 32 that the same Prant Officer "occupied the chair as authorised by the Collector". The presiding autho to the members present rity read out and explained the following telegraphic message from the Collector : President of Gadag Municipality on 3rd August as already without fail". At this meeting two points of the appellant raised order, (1) that the election of the president for . the remaining period of the quadrennium as mentioned in the agenda was the meeting illegal, and (2) was not an adjourned meeting of the municipalitv and was also illegal because it was under the instruc tions of the Collector that the adjourned meeting was being held and that the Collector had no such power. The minutes of "the presiding authority ruled out the points of order on the ground' that this was a special meeting called by the Collector for the election of the President and "Government have directed election accordingly arranged. Hold to hold election the proceedings further show ..• . ~. } ... c O< r. , • . • I _ ... ... - • "'S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 1277 including the appellant expressed a desire · the election has to be held as already fixed". After the ruling given by the presiding authority, 13 mem-· ·to walk out and walked out with the permission of the presiding· authority. The remammg members, as al ready. indicated, continued the business of the meet that the 2nd respondent should ing and the proposal be elected president of the municipality for the re maining ·period of the quadrennium after having been duly made and seconded was carried unanimously and the meeting terminated. 1955 Shyabutidinsab Mohidinsab Akki. v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. It would thus appear that the meeting of the 3rd August 1954 for the election of the president had been called by the Collector who had authorized the Prant Officer to preside over that meeting and that the 2nd respondent was duly elected president. Under section 35(3) of the Act, for such a special general meeting three clear days' notice has to be gwen "specifying the time and place at which such meeting to be held and the business thereat shall be served upon the councillors, and posted up at the municipal office or the kacheri or some other public building in the municipal borough and also published m a local vernacular newspaper having a large circu lation if such exists". to be transacted the meeting of to be served and published It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the notice required by section 35(3) contemplates a written notice in the the 3rd manner specified, and August 1954 could not be said to have been held after complying with the terms of sub-section (3) of section It 1 was also contended that the requirements of 35, section 19-A(l) and (2) have also not been complied that the Collector with because there is no evidence had called that meeting or that he had made an order the presiding authority had been in writing In our opi authorized to preside over that meeting. nion, there is no substance in any one of these conten tions. From the record of the proceedings of the pro posed meeting of the 30th July 1954 and the actual meeting on the 3rd August 1954 it is clear that what ever had ·been done had been done under the orders of • 7-90 S.C. In1ia/59 r ... - 1955· Shyabuddi'ISab Mbhidinsab Akki· v. TM- Gadag-BUgen· Municipal BorougN and others Sinlia ]. 1278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] intimated· those meetings. the Collector. He: had called the meeting of the 30th July as also of the 3rd · August 1954. It was he who had appointed the Prant Officer as the presiding officer for both It is true that the notice of the meeting of the 3rd August 1954 had not been given in writing but had only beerr to all the councillors who were present at the meeting of the 30th July 1954. The notice amply satisfies though it was requirement of three days' clear notice, not in writing. It had indicated the· time of the meet ing and the business to be transacted. Under section 35(4) the ordinary venue of a meeting is the municipal office unless otherwise indicated in the notice. also true that ; the notice was not served in the manner indicated in sub-section. (3) of section 35 of the Act There is no evidence· that there existed a local verna cular newspaper with large circulation, in which the notice of the meeting could be published. The ques tion is, do those omissions render the notice ineffec tive in law. That could only be so if those provisions were held to be mandatory. The following provisions (omitting the words not material to this case) would show that those provisions of section 35(3) are direc tory and not mandatory. and that any omissions in· the manner of service of the notice are mere irregu-· larities which would not vitiate the proceedings unless it was shown that those irregularities had prejudicially affected the proceedings :- It "No resolution of a municipality .......... shall be <kerned im, alid on account of any irregularity in the service of notice upon any councillor or member pro- the municipality ..... . vided that the proceedings of . . . . . . . . were , not prejudicially affected by regularity''. the councillors Fortunately constituting the municipality were present on both the occasions, namely, 30th July and 3rd August, 1954. Hence they had ample notice of the meeting to be held on the 3rd August, 1954, the time and place of the meeting and the business to be It has not been either alleged or proved the irregulari ties in the service of the notice or the omissions com- transacted. respondents, all 1955 Shyabuddinsab Mohidinsab Akkf v. The Gadag-Betgeri. Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1279 • 1 ,. that meeting. the presence of this connection the provisions of """\ • plained' of had prejudicially affected the proceedings. But it was contended that as the notice had. not been posted up at the municipal office or the_ local kacheri or some other public building and had also not been if there published in a local vernacular newspaper, were one, though all the councillors were present on 3rd August, 1954, the members of the public had no such notice and naturally therefore could not be pre it was In sent at pointed out that sub-section ( 6) of section 35 provides that every such meeting shall be open t~ the public, unless the presiding authority directs to. the contrary. It is evident from that sub-section that though the public at such meet~ ings may be desirable, it is not obligatory. The pre sence at or the absence from such a meeting of members of the public has no legal consequence so far as the validity of the election is concerned. It must therefore be held that the meeting of the 3rd August, 1954 in substance, though not in form, complied with the requirements of the law for holding a valid special general meeting and that therefore that meeting was the order not invalid, assuming, as already said, r" of the presiding authority adjourning the meeting of the 30th July, 1954 was not authorized. It has to be that such a special remembered general meeting can be presided over only by the Collector or the person author.ized by him and if either the Collector or his nominee does not hold the meet ing, it is not competent for councillors present to elect their own chairman for presiding over such a meeting. Therefore if the presiding authority admittedly under instructions to proceed the Collector with the elections on the 30th July 1954, the council lors present could not hold a meeting of their own with a president of their own choice and transact· the only business on the agenda, namely, the election of if the meeting president. Hence, rightly or wrongly, called for the 30th July was not held, another meet ing had to be held for the purpose within 25 days of the vacancy. the occurrence of this case, as a this connection refused In - 1955 Shyabuddinsab, Mohidinsab Akkf - v, The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough · and othe'rs· Sinha J. 1280 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [1955], if · not three days in law were mere result of the 1 expiry of the original term of office ~f the president and vice-president, another meeting statutory notice had giving the 'required to be held. The meeting held on the 3rd August. there were some. Indeed, 1954 was such a meeting. the manner of publication or service of omissions the notice but those irregularities which do not have the effect of vitiating the election held at that meeting. The election of the president therefore, could not be otherwise invalid, assailed on the ground of the irregularity · in the ser vice or publication of the notice, in the special· circum If all the councillors had not stances of this case. been present on the 30th July or had · not been in formed of the 3rd August considerations may have arisen but in 1954, other this case it is clear that there was absolutely no pre judice to any, party or · individual or the municipality as a whole. But it was further contended that the walking out of the .13 councillors rendered the meet ing infructuous. In our oprmon, such a result does not follow from the voluntary act of the 13 councillors who chose to walk out. It was not even suggested that there was no quorum for the special. general meeting· after the 13 councillors walked out. the proposed meeting of it was "for The next question is whether the provisions of sec tion 19(1) as they stood on the 3rd August 1954 render the election of · the president and the vice-president the 3rd August 1954 invalid as remaining period of the quadrennium". The High Court has taken the view .that the remaining period of the quadrennium would not necessarily end on the 9th July 1955, in view of the proviso to section 19( 1) "that the term of office of such president or vice-president shall be deemed to extend to and expire with of on which his successor In view of events that have happened it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of that judgment of the High Court and decision. After the after the grant of special Bombay Legislature enacted Act LIV of 1954 which the 14th was published the Bombay Gazette on this· court, is elected". leave by ' - " .• '* - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1281 ~ i I October 1954. Sections 2 and 3 of the amending Act are in · these terms : "2. In section the Bombay Municipal 19 of (1) after Boroughs Act, 1925, in sub-section (1),- the words than one year' the words 'or not less than the residue of the term of office of the ·municipality, whichever is less' shall be inserted; 'not less 1955 .. Shyabuddinsab Mohidinsab Akki . v • . The Gailag-Betgeri Municijal Borough and others Sinha J. 'four to as the words 'three years' to have come

#3. (1) The amendments made by (2) for the words years' shall be substituted. · this Act ·shall into force on the date on be· deemed which the Bombay District Municipal arid Municipal Boroughs (Amendment) Act, 1954, came into force (hereinafter this section referred 'the said date') and all elections to the office of the president or vice-president, held on or after the said date· and into force of this Act, shall be before the coming deemed to be valid as if this Act had been in force on the said date; and any person elected to the office of the president or vice-president at any of such · elec- - tions shall not be deemed to have been illegally elected merely on the ground that the residue of the term of office of the municipality being less than _one year at the time of such election, he would hold his · office for a term less than one year in contravention of section the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, as 19 of the coming into force of it was in operation- before th~A~ - (2) Nothing contained in this section shall affect judgment; decree or order of any competent court, passed before the coming into force of this Act, the ground holding any of such elections invalid on specified in sub-section (l)".. _ - It has not been contended that section 19 as amended by Act_ LIV of 1954 does ·not in terms cover the elec tions now impugned; nor that section · 3 of the amend ing Act quoted above is not retrospective; but ·it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that it is not to the extent of affecting pending pro . retrospective In ceedings. deemed to have come into force on the 11th May 1954 the amendment ip question ·1955 .S/rJtibuddinsab 'Mohidinstib Aiki :v. ·rhe ~Gadag.!_Bttgtri 'Munitipal Boroirgh and others Sinha J. ' .

1.'282 'StJP.REME COURT .RrEPORTS [t955] thought legislature . apparently ·on which date the .amending Act · XXXV ·of 1954 had come into force. Section 3 in terms .also declares .eleations to .the office of president and vice-presi .all dent held on or .after the llih May .1954 ·and before .the coming into force of the amending Act shall be .deemed to 'have been valid. The section also declares in unequivocal that such an. election .shall · riot be questioned simply on the ground of contravention of section 19 on which the election. of the 2nd and 3rd respondents had been questioned before ·the High Court.,· The that an election of declare 'beyond all controversy president or vice-president . for the unexpired portion of -the term of a municipality .could not b.e questioned on the ground that the provisions of section 19 as it the amendment had been contravened. stood before But it .was argued on behalf of that in terms the amendment had not .been. made applicable to pending this court should hold that the amendment did not have the elections which . were already effect .of validating under challenge in a court. Np authority. has been cited . before us in support . .of the contention that un less there are express words in the . amendi'ng statute to ihe effect that the amendment shall apply to ·pend it cannot affect such proceed ing proceedirgs _also, ings. There • is . clear. : a11thority . to , the contrary in the following dittum of. Lord Read.ing, C.J. in the case of The King v. The General Commissioners of. lncome tax for .Southampton; Ex .. parte. W. M. $inger(• );- litigation and that the appellant therefore ·"I -.cannot accept· the contention of the· applicant that·· an enactment 'can · only take away · vested rights of .action for which .legal proceedings· have been .com there are in the enactment · express words menced if to that •effect. '.Phere is' no authority for this proposi tion,· and 'I -do .not see . why in principle it .should. be the law: But it is necessary that dear . language should be used -to .make the retrospective . ·effect aP.plicable proceedings . commenced .. before . the : passing . of ' . the statute'!, · · 'Tfuif '·was a" case ·fo ·w1Uch the Act in '·queStion· had (I), 1Cl91GjzicJi.249,25g;'" '.•: . '"·'' .,. :·o;, ' •955 Shyabuddinsab Mohidinsab Ak(<i v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough anil others Sinha J. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 128j to pending commissioners In every case legislature clearly assessments made by It was held by validated that the the court wrong parishes. retrospective effect of the· relevant section extended to proceedings for a prohibition commenced before the Act came into force and the rule nisi for a prohibition the language was therefore discharged. of the amending statute has to be examined to find intended even out whether pending proceedings to be affected by such statute. A number of authorities were cited before us but it is only necessary to refer to the decision of their Lord ships of the Judicial Committee in Mukerjee, Official Receiver v. Ramratan Kuer (1), which is clearly in .point. In that case while an appeal had been pending before the Judicial Committee the amending Act had been passed clearly showing that the Act was retrospective in the sense that it applied to all cases of a particular ·description, without litigation. reference In those circumstances their Lordships pointed out that if any saving were to be implied in favour of pending proceedings, then the provisions of the statute largely be rendered nugatory. Those observa tions apply with full force to the present case, inas much as if any saving were to be implied in favour of cases pending on words "all elections to the office of the president or vice-president, held on or after the said date and be fore the coming into force of this Act, shall be deem ed to be valid" could not be given their full effect. As there are no such saving clauses in express or implied the amendment was terms, it must be held dearly to all cases of election of president or vice-president, whe ther or not the matter had been taken to court. It is the duty of courts to give full effect to tions of the legislature as expressed in a statute. That being so, it must be held that the amending Act had the effect of curing any illegality or irregularity · in the elections in question with reference to the provi sions of section 19 of the Act. legislature the amendment, the date of intended by to apply For the reasons afores;i.id it must ·be 'held that the ' . ' . ' ·. (I)' [1935] t.R. 63·!.A. 47, ) .... \ ... 1955 Shyabuddinsab Mohidin. Jab Akki v. The Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough and others Sinha J. 1955 February 23 1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] meeting of the ~rd August 1954 had. been validly held and that there is no illegality in the election. of 2nd and 3rd respondents as president and vice-presi the orders dent respectively. We accordingly affirm of the High Court, though not for the same reasons. The appeal fails ·and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. HANS MULLER OF NURENBURG . tJ. SUPERINTENDENT, PRESIDENCY JAIL, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS. [MuKHERJEA C.J., S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and }AGANNADHADAS JJ.) . Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 21 and 22-Entry 9 and entry 10 in Union list of Seventh Schedule to Constitution-Preventive De tention Act 1950 (Act V of 1950), s. 3(1)(b)-Whether ultra vires Constitution-Foreigners Act 1946 (Act XXXI of 1946), s. 3(2)(c) ,Constitution-Extradition Act 1870 and For Whether ultra vires eigners Act, 1946--Distinction between. The petitioner, a West German subject, was placed un<;Ier pre ventive detention by an order of the West Bengal Government under '· 3( 1) (b) of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 on the ground that he was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946 and that it had becoine necessary to make arrangements for his ex pulsion from India ahd tht; refore he was required to be detained until the issue of an appropriate order from the Central Government. The questions for determination in the case· were :- (i) whether s. 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act was ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as it contravenes Arts. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and whether it w:is beyond the ·legislative competence ·of Parliament to enact such a law; ' ) .. (ii) whether, was made in bad faith. in any event, the detention was invalid as .it Held that the Impugned portion of the Preventive Detention Act and i. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act on which it is based are not ultra vires the Constitution· inasmuch a:~; ( i) in view of Entry 9 and Entry 10· 0£ the Union list of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, language of which must be given the widest meaning, the legislative competence of Parlia ment to deal with the question of preventive detCntion of foreigners ·