JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. 1. Municipal Board Jaspur through its President, Mukhtar Ahmad, has preferred this petition with two prayers. The first is that the order dated 11th July 1991 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the resolution alleged to have been pissed by the Municipal Board at its meeting held on 24th June, 1991, may be quashed. The other is that the communication dated 11th September, 1991, sent by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Nainital to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned asking him to submit his report after taking into account the opinion of the public at large in relation to the demand raised by the Board with the State Government may also be quashed. 2. On 24th June, 1991, a meeting of the Board was held at the residence of the President. 5 members, namely, Sarvasri Abdul Hamid, Nasim Ahmad, Fida Hussain, Gulsher Ali and Ali Hussain and Sri Mukhtar Ahmad and the President (in all 6) were present. Important decisions were taken at the meeting one such decision was the rescinding of the resolution no. 44 dated 7th February, 1989, whereby it elected the Vice Presidents of the Board. Indisputably the Board elected its Vice Presidents by a special resolution. In Lakshmi Narain Misra v. Municipal Board Moghalsarai, 1961 ALJ 522, a learned Single Judge of this court had taken the view that where the special resolution by which a senior Vice President was elected had exhausted itself after it was acted upon and he had assumed charge of his office, the mere cancellation of that resolution could not bring about the result that he had to quit the office. We respectfully agree with this decision. It follows that the Board had no jurisdiction to oust the Vice Presidents after they had assumed the office in pursuance of the resolution dated 7th February, 1989. 3. Sub-section (4) of section 86 provides that every meeting shall be held at the municipal office (if any) or other convenient place of which notice has been duly given. This provision makes it clear that ordinarily the meeting shall be held at the office of the municipal board concerned. Section 90 lays down that every meeting shall be open to the public unless the President considers that the public should be excluded during the whole or any part of the meeting. This provision makes it clear that ordinarily the meeting shall be held at the office of the municipal board concerned. Section 90 lays down that every meeting shall be open to the public unless the President considers that the public should be excluded during the whole or any part of the meeting. Section 93 gives the right to the Chief Engineer, Local self Government Engineering Department, the Director of Medical and Health services or the Assistant Director of Medical and Health Services, the Civil Surgeon, the Executive Engineer, the Inspector of Schools, and any other officer specially authorised by the State Government in this behalf to attend a meeting of the Board and to address the Board on any matter affecting their respective departments. A. combined reading of sections 86, 90 and 93 leads to an irresistible conclusion that a meeting of the Board can be held only at a public place. These provisions negative the idea of the meeting being held at the residence of an individual. 4. Out of 15 members of the Board, including the President, July 5 attended the meeting of 24th June, 1991 at the residence of the President. Presumably the remaining 10 members were reluctant to go to the residence of the President. In view of the foregoing discussion we came to the conclusion that the Board acted without jurisdiction in annulling its earlier resolution dated 7th February 1989, whereby it elected Vice President. We also come to the conclusion that the proceedings of 24th June, 1991 were illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by the impugned order the District Magistrate has purported to cancel the resolution dated 24th June, 1991 but he had no jurisdiction to do so in view of the language employed by the Legislature in section 34 of the Act. Be that as it may, it is trite law that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution the court does not quash an illegal order to bring up an illegal order. We are also satisfied that broadly the District Magistrate did complete justice between the parties, particularly when he has noted in his order that 10 elected members of the Board had complained to him about the legality of the proceedings of the Board dated 24th June, 1991. The District Magistrate did substantial justice by passing the impugned order. We are also satisfied that broadly the District Magistrate did complete justice between the parties, particularly when he has noted in his order that 10 elected members of the Board had complained to him about the legality of the proceedings of the Board dated 24th June, 1991. The District Magistrate did substantial justice by passing the impugned order. All told, we do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. The petition is dismissed summarily.