RAM LABHAYA Ag. C. J.: This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of mandamus on the Government of Assam and also for writ in the nature of quo warranto on Opposite Party No. 2 with a view to removing him from the office which he is alleged to have illegally usurped with other consequential writs in the nature of prohibition etc. (2) The petitioner was Chairman of the Now-gong Local Board. His case was that he was a Congressman from 1921 till 1951. He was re­turned as a member of the Nowgong Local Board on the Congress ticket and was elected Chairman in 1949. On the 12th July 1951, he resigned from the Congress Party and joined the newly formed Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. Efforts were made to pursuade him to rejoin the Congress Party. But he refused on grounds of principle. He was chosen as a candidate of the K. M. P. Party at Nowgong for the elections. In order to discredit him and to cause him injury, by usurpation of the powers of the Chair­man which he was entitled to exercise, the Congress Party had a notice served on him as Chairman of the Board on the 24th July 1951 by Sri Lila Borah that he would move at the special meeting to be held on the 4th August 1951 a Resolution, which was as follows: "That this meeting of the Nowgong Local Board expresses its want of confidence on the present Chairman Sjt. Mohi Chandra Bohra who has proved himself to be incompetent to perform the duties assigned by law and who has also abused power so assigned to him as Chairman of the Board. (This reso­lution will hereafter be referred as the no-confidence resolution.)" (3) He received this notice after the agenda for the meeting fixed for 4th August 1951 had been settled and published. In spite of this, he included this item in the agenda. The meeting was held on the 4th Aug. 1951 and as all the items on the agenda could not be finished, it was adjourned. On the 9th of September 1951 some members sent a requisition asking for a special meeting on the 20th September 1951 at 11.30 A.M., to discuss the Resolution which had not come before the Board on the 4th of August 1951. 1951 and as all the items on the agenda could not be finished, it was adjourned. On the 9th of September 1951 some members sent a requisition asking for a special meeting on the 20th September 1951 at 11.30 A.M., to discuss the Resolution which had not come before the Board on the 4th of August 1951. This requisition was sent by the peti­tioner to the Government asking for their opin­ion as to whether the members of the Board making the requisition could themselves fix the date and the time for the special meeting. Be­fore he received any reply to the reference made to the Government, the adjourned special meet­ing was held on the 24th September 1951. It was attended by 30 members. The unfinished items of the agenda had to be taken up. Sri L. Bora was asked to move his Resolution. Sri L. Bora withdrew his Resolution without any objection from the members present. On the 17th October 1951, the petitioner re­ceived a telegram from the Government directing him to call a special meeting before the 7th November 1951 for the consideration of the non-confidence resolution. He was also in­formed later that the members of the Board when requesting for a special meeting could not themselves fix date and time for the meet­ing. The petitioner has alleged that the directive requiring him to call a special meeting was in all probability issued by the Govern­ment without the knowledge of the fact that the Resolution, which Sri L. Bora wanted to move on the 4th of August 1951, had already been withdrawn on the 24th September 1951. But in obedience to the orders of the Government he fixed a meeting for the 30th October 1951 and on that date in the meeting he explained the situation to the members. He told them that the Resolution of Sri L. Bora had been withdrawn on the 24th Septem­ber 1951. That Resolution could not be moved as it had been dealt with and disposed of. A similar Resolution also could not be moved within 6 months under sub-r. 29 of the Rules framed under the Local Self-Government Act. A third objection to the moving of the Resolu­tion was that such a Resolution of no-confidence was not contemplated by the law as contained in the Assam Local Self-Government Act. A similar Resolution also could not be moved within 6 months under sub-r. 29 of the Rules framed under the Local Self-Government Act. A third objection to the moving of the Resolu­tion was that such a Resolution of no-confidence was not contemplated by the law as contained in the Assam Local Self-Government Act. On these grounds he ruled the motion out of order and as there was no other business to be trans­acted, he left the meeting. (4) On the 10th November, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong, sent to him a copy of a telegram from the Government of Assam inti­mating that the Government had approved the Resolution recommending his removal. The tele­gram authorised the Deputy Commissioner to direct the Vice-Chairman to carry on the work of the Chairman and to convene a meeting with­in 14 days for the election of the Chairman. The Opposite Party No. 2, the Vice-Chairman of Board, informed the petitioner that in confor­mity with the directions contained in the tele­gram he had assumed charge. The Vice-Chair­man also had fixed 21st November, 1951 as the date for the meeting for election of the Chair­man. (5) The petitioner further stated that he served a notice on the Government demanding justice which he did not succeed in getting. OB these facts, the contentions raised by him were: 1. That the Board did not pass any Resolution for the removal of its Chairman nor was any such Resolution sent to the Government for its approval. 2. That the Secretary, Local Sell Government, had been informed about the re­sult of the meeting held on the 30th October 1951 and he must have known that in that meet­ing no Resolution for the removal of the Chair­man was passed. The Government could not act on any information received from a private source. 3. That the no-confidence Resolution which had to be moved on the 4th August 1951 had been withdrawn on the 24th September, 1951 and could not be moved afresh on 30th Octo­ber, 1951. 4. That no Resolution for his re­moval was put to vote in the meeting of the 30tb October 1951 and it could not be said that any such Resolution was passed by a two-third majo­rity. 5. That under R. 19 of the Subsidiary Rules made under the Assam Local Self-Government Act, his decision as Chairman of the meeting held on the 30th October 1951 was final. 6. 5. That under R. 19 of the Subsidiary Rules made under the Assam Local Self-Government Act, his decision as Chairman of the meeting held on the 30th October 1951 was final. 6. That the Act did not contemplate any Resolution of no-confidence. 7. That the Government, in these circumstances, had no power to order or direct his removal or to order the Board to elect a new Chairman. This direction, it is contended, was without jurisdiction. 8. That the Vice-chairman took charge of the office of the Chairman il­legally and that in law he was still the Chair­man. He had never handed over charge. 9. That the Vice-Chairman had no authority i» law to convene a meeting for the election of the Chairman and such election, if held, was void. The entire move was characterised by him as malicious. (6) A counter-affidavit was put in on behalf of the opposite parties. Sri Ram Nath Sarma, who has been elected as the Chairman during the pendency of this petition, is the deponent of this affidavit. His version of the affair is that he was present in the meetings of the Local Board held on the 4th August, 24th September and 30th October 1951. On the 24th July 1951, Sri Lila Bora gave notice to the Chairman of a Resolution that he wanted to move in the special meeting to be held on the 4th August 1951. This Resolution was included in the agen­da. In that meeting 21 out of 30 present pass­ed the two following Resolutions: 1. The House is of opinion that Government may be moved and recommended that the mem­bership of Sjt. Mahichandra Bora, B. L., as Lo­cal Board member of the Nowgong Board be cancelled as his brother Sjt. Khargeswar Bora, who lives in his joint family, holds interest in Board's property i.e., shares in Rupohi, Doboka and Mairabari Hats under the patronage of said Mahichandra Bora who is the present Chairman of the Board. 2. The House is of opinion that Sjt. Mahichan­dra Bora, B. L. Chairman of this Board has per­sistently showed his incompetency to manage the affairs of the Board. Particularly he has shown incompetency in matters of managing the affairs of Public Works, Cart Tax, Medical Depart­ment, and also in the management of Bazara and Hats. (7) These Resolutions, it is alleged, were allowed to be moved. Mahichan­dra Bora, B. L. Chairman of this Board has per­sistently showed his incompetency to manage the affairs of the Board. Particularly he has shown incompetency in matters of managing the affairs of Public Works, Cart Tax, Medical Depart­ment, and also in the management of Bazara and Hats. (7) These Resolutions, it is alleged, were allowed to be moved. But when the Chairman found that they had the support of 21 members, he refused to record them in the proceeding. The 21 members, who supported these Resolu­tions, then submitted a petition to the Deputy Commissioner that very day stating the above facts. The allegation of the petitioner that the meeting of the 4th August, 1951 was adjourned and that no-confidence Resolution could not be considered on that date was characterised as false. Similarly, the truth of the allegation that the alleged no-confidence Resolution was with­drawn on the 24th September 1951 is denied. The correctness of the copies of the proceedings of the meetings held on 4th August and 24th September, 1951 filed by the petitioner is simi­larly denied. As regards the meeting of the 30th October 1951, Sri Ram Nath Sarma stated that a Resolu­tion expressing want of confidence in the Chair­man was moved by Sri Lila Bora. It was second­ed by Mvi. Jubed Ali. The then Chairman, who is the present petitioner wanted to declare the Resolution out of order. But 22 members out of 32 non-official members present pressed for a division on the Resolution. The Chairman then left. The members decided to continue the meeting. They placed the Vice-Chairman in the Chair and passed another Resolution, which is as follows: "This Board recommends to the Government that as want of confidence on the present Chairman Sjt. Mahichandra Bora is express­ed by two-thirds of the whole members of this Board, he should be removed from his office of the Chairman immediately." (8) The statements contained in the affidavits •f the parties are conflicting as to what hap­pened to the no-confidence Resolution in the meetings of the 4th August 1951 and the 24th September 1951. The parties seemed to be very near to each other in regards to the proceedings of the meeting of the 30th October 1951. As re­gards this meeting, the case for the petitioner is that he ruled the no-confidence Resolution against him out of order and left the meeting. The parties seemed to be very near to each other in regards to the proceedings of the meeting of the 30th October 1951. As re­gards this meeting, the case for the petitioner is that he ruled the no-confidence Resolution against him out of order and left the meeting. The case for the opposite parties is that he want­ed to rule it out of order but 22 members press­ed for a division and he left the meeting. The Chairman is a lawyer. The members could have gathered his intention from what he said on the resolution. Presumably he refused to put Resolution before the house for reasons which he has now put forward for the contention that the re­solution of no-confidence could not be moved on the 30th October. His decision evidently was not acceptable to the Board. He left and the members present or the majority of them decid­ed to continue it after having placed the Vice-Chairman in the Chair. In the absence of the Chairman a Resolution was passed. By this Resolution, the Board recommended to the Government to remove the Chairman immediately on the ground that he had lost the confi­dence of the two-thirds of the members of the Board. It was this Resolution which the Pro­vincial Government subsequently approved. (9) It is not necessary for us to resolve the conflict on facts in this case. Even if the peti­tioner had no opportunity of ruling the no-con­fidence Resolution against him out of order, it is clear that the Resolution recommending his removal was passed after he had? left the meeting. The procedure for! the removal of an elected Chairman is pro-] vided in S. 12 (A) (2) of the A. L. S. Govt. Act. A Chairman elected under S. 11, may be remov­ed from his office with the approval of the Pro­vincial Government by a resolution of the Board recommending such removal in favour of which not less than two-third of the whole number of the members shall have given their votes at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The convening of a special meeting for the purpose is an extraordinary step. The meeting can be con­vened by a notice to all the members. All the members and particularly the Chairman in whom want of confidence is sought to be ex­pressed will have notice of the meeting. The convening of a special meeting for the purpose is an extraordinary step. The meeting can be con­vened by a notice to all the members. All the members and particularly the Chairman in whom want of confidence is sought to be ex­pressed will have notice of the meeting. Now it is not the case of the opposite parties; that the meeting of the 30th October 1951 was specially convened for the consideration of a Resolution recommending the removal of the Chairman. If at all this meeting could con­sider a Resolution expressing want of confi­dence in the Chairman. The Resolution recom­mending removal, therefore, could not be mov­ed in that meeting. All members of the Board were not informed of it. The Chairman too-had no knowledge or notice of it. The Resolu­tion therefore, cannot be said to have been pass­ed by the Board in conformity with the provisions of the law on the subject, and could not1 be regarded as valid. The learned counsel for the opposite parties concedes that the Board in passing the Resolu­tion without duly complying with the require­ments of S. 12 (A) (2) acted irregularly in pass­ing the Resolution recommending the removal of the Chairman. He has, however, argued that the defect in the proceeding is technical and considering that a two-third majority of the members of the Board actually recommend­ed his removal, relief that the petitioner prays may not be granted. He pleads that the wishes of the majority are known. The Provincial Government have agreed to the removal of the Chairman. It will create unnecessary compli­cations if by reason of irregularities which have caused no prejudice, the petitioner is reinstated as the Chairman against the wishes of the two-third majority of the members of the Board expressed so emphatically. (10) We are not prepared to agree to this contention. We do not regard that the irregu­larities could be treated as mere technical. The removal of a Chairman, whatever may be the reasons on which it may be demanded or decid­ed upon, is a very important matter. It would be opposed to the principle of natural justice if a Chairman of a Board duly elected is allowed to be removed without any notice of the resolu­tion sought to be moved against him. It is not only the Chairman who did not have notice. Other members present too had no such notice. It would be opposed to the principle of natural justice if a Chairman of a Board duly elected is allowed to be removed without any notice of the resolu­tion sought to be moved against him. It is not only the Chairman who did not have notice. Other members present too had no such notice. Even if, therefore, the requisite majority was there to support the Resolution recommending removal of the Chairman, we think the Resolu­tion never came properly before the Board. In a sense it was an ex parte condemnation of the Chairman. It was in violation of the safeguards which the Act expressly provided against pos­sible majority tyranny or arbitrariness. A special meeting convened for the express pur­pose of removal must by a two-third majority of its total strength pass the resolution. No removal of the Chairman is possible un­less the resolution fulfils these statutory re­quirements. The members could easily convene a special meeting for the purpose. A Resolu­tion about the removal of the Chairman could have been passed a couple of weeks later. It is difficult to imagine that the members of the Board assembled there were not aware of the requirements of the law in this respect. The un­pardonable haste with which the Resolution was passed indicates that the consideration of the Resolution was not fair or dispassionate. We cannot, in these circumstances, hold that the Resolution was valid. Such a resolution could not take effect even if approved by the Pro­vincial Government. The approval of the Pro­vincial Government cannot confer that validity on it which it initially lacked. The Provincial Government may grant or withhold its approv­al if there is a valid resolution recommending the removal of a chairman. Where this resolu­tion was not passed in a special meeting con­vened for the purpose the resolution has no le­gal force or effect and there was nothing which the Provincial Government could approve. (11) The learned counsel has also urged that the, Resolution of removal was merely a con­sequence of no-confidence Resolution which had been passed for all practical purposes in the presence of the petitioner. Assuming that the no-confidence Resolution was passed in pre­sence of the petitioner or at any rate the two-third majority of the House expressed their sup­port to it we cannot hold that the Resolution for removal was merely consequential and not an independent Resolution. Assuming that the no-confidence Resolution was passed in pre­sence of the petitioner or at any rate the two-third majority of the House expressed their sup­port to it we cannot hold that the Resolution for removal was merely consequential and not an independent Resolution. The Assam Local Self-Government Act does not provide for any no-confidence Resolution. A Resolution express­ing want of confidence in the Chairman, if pass­ed, would amount to a censure of the Chair­man. There is nothing in the Act requiring the Chairman to resign on such a censure. Even the Government cannot remove him. He may resign if such a contingency occurs. But if he does not do so, the members must pass a Reso­lution for his removal in a meeting specially convened for the purpose and by a requisite majority, for, removal can only be obtained by a Resolution of the Board passed by a two-third majority if it is approved by the Provinicial Government. A mere no-confidence Resolution cannot be a substitute for a Resolution for I removal. If the removal could follow as a con­sequence of the no-confidence Resolution, a se­cond Resolution recommending removal would not be necessary and yet the members of the Board thought that a Resolution expressly re­commending removal was needed. In this view they were correct. They passed a Resolution. It was, thus, an independent Resolution and could not be saved from the taint of invalidity by being described as something consequential. (12) Another contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties is that it is not possible to grant any effective relief to the petitioner in this case as during the pendency of the peti­tion a new Chairman has been elected and he is not a party to the proceeding. The petitioner has professed ignorance of this fact. He has however, admitted that Provincial Government directed the Vice-Chairman to convene a meet­ing for the election of a new Chairman. He has now been elected. The fact that a new Chairman has been elected raises a real diffi­culty in the case. Petitioner's grievance can­not be redressed till the person in wrongful charge of the office is removed by a proper writ or order. The writ that could suitably be issu­ed against a person who has wrongfully usurp­ed or taken charge of a public office is a writ in the nature of quo warranto. Petitioner's grievance can­not be redressed till the person in wrongful charge of the office is removed by a proper writ or order. The writ that could suitably be issu­ed against a person who has wrongfully usurp­ed or taken charge of a public office is a writ in the nature of quo warranto. No such order or writ can issue to a person unless he is made a party to the proceeding. He is to be heard be­fore a writ of an extraordinary nature is issu­ed. The opposite parties in this petition are (1) Secretary, Local Self-Government, State of As­sam, (2) Md. Nurul Islam, (3) Nowgong Local Board and (4) The State of Assam. At the time when the petition was put in, Opposite Party No. 2 was acting as the Chairman. A writ in the nature of quo warranto could issue to him. The reliefs claimed in the petition were suit­able in the circumstances which then existed. A writ of mandamus on the Government was prayed for. A writ in the nature of quo warranto was prayed for against Opposite Party No. 2 for his removal from his illegal usurpa­tion of the powers of the Nowgong Local- Board. Other consequential reliefs were also prayed for. All or some of the reliefs could have been allowed if the situation had not changed. Nurul Islam is not now in charge of the office of the Chairman. The new Chairman who may have no legal title to the office is not before the Court. The legal position, which, in our opi­nion, does not admit of any doubt, is that in the case of a public office, the person who claims the exercise of the public office is the only pro­per deft, vide 32 Cys 1446 (Page 148 of the Law of Extraordinary Remedies by Forrest G. Fer­ris). If others are joined, the misjoinder may not be fatal to the petition but he is undoubted­ly a necessary party. Besides, whatever may be the nature of the writ that may have to be is­sued, no order can be passed against him in his absence and without any notice to Rim. Such a course would be opposed to the principle of natural justice. It is thus not possible to grant any effective relief. Besides, whatever may be the nature of the writ that may have to be is­sued, no order can be passed against him in his absence and without any notice to Rim. Such a course would be opposed to the principle of natural justice. It is thus not possible to grant any effective relief. The new Chairman who is actually in charge of the office cannot be removed by an order or a writ addressed to any of the opposite parties to this petition. (13) The reliefs prayed for have also become inappropriate. Opposite Party No. 2 is not in charge of the office of the Chairman. A writ or order for his removal is not necessary. A writ or order to the Government directing it to with­draw its approval or to revoke its order for a fresh election of the Chairman will have no meaning when the Chairman has already been elected. No relief short of, or different from the removal of the new Chairman can be re­garded as effective. (14) The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the present Chairman of the Board has put in an affidavit in support of the case set up by the Opposite Parties. He has thus submit­ted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and should be treated as a party to the proceeding. We are not prepared to subscribe to this pro­position. We have not been shown any autho­rity for the view that a person because he hap-i pens to be acquainted with the facts of the case, automatically becomes a party to the proceeding by merely putting in an affidavit. Advantage has also been sought to be taken of the statement of Mr. Gupta, the learned advocate for the Board, to the effect that he was autho­rised to appear for the Board by the new Chair­man. By authorising the learned advocate to represent the Board he has acted in the dis­charge of his function as the Chairman no doubt, but he could not include himself as a party to the proceeding by any act of his own. He could be included as a party to the proceeding only by an order of the Court but at no stage of the case leave has been asked for to amend the petition with a view to impleading the pre­sent Chairman or for amending reliefs. He could be included as a party to the proceeding only by an order of the Court but at no stage of the case leave has been asked for to amend the petition with a view to impleading the pre­sent Chairman or for amending reliefs. (15) Notwithstanding the observations made above regarding the invalidity of the Resolu­tion of the Board by which the removal of the Chairman was recommended to the Provincial Government and approved by them, this peti­tion ought to fail as infructuous by reason of the events that have taken place during the pen­dency of the petition as the effect of these events is that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner. Other points raised in the case need not be decided in these circumstances. The rule is discharged. (16) DEKA J.: I agree. Petition dismissed.