N.V. DABHOLKAR, J.:- Both these writ petitions, by mutual consent of the parties and taking into consideration the importance of the issue involved, were taken up for hearing expeditiously. By mutual consent, Rule was made returnable forthwith and the matters were argued before us daily afternoon from 28-72006 onwards. 2. Two gentlemen - Deep and Sandip (Sandeep), claiming /believing that each of them is the only duly elected Mayor of the Corporation of City of Ahmednagar, have approached this Court, praying to invoke its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in his favour and against the other. Each petitioner is respondent no.6 in the other petition. Respondent no.7, in the first writ petition, is said to be Deputy Mayor elected in a meeting on the same day i.e. 30-6-2006 wherein Sandeep claims to have been elected as Mayor. Respondent nos. 1 & 2, in both petitions, are State authorities, respondent nos.3 & 4 are associated with the Corporation and respondent no.5 - Shri. Bhagwan Fulsaunder (Fulsaunder) is the outgoing Mayor. We intend to reproduce the main prayers in both the writ petitions for ready reference. In Writ Petition No.5146/2006, petitioner - Deep has prayed as follows : "(C) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature thereby quash and set aside the illegal minutes of proceeding of the special meeting presided over by Namdeo Shantaram Pawar for the post of Mayor as well as meeting presided over by Respondent No.6 Sandeep Kotkar for the post of Deputy Mayor dated 30-6-2006 after 4.00 p.m. (Exhibit 'G' collectively). (D) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature thereby quash and set aside letter/ communication issued by the Respondent No.2 Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department dated 6th July, 2006 (Exhibit I). (E) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature thereby quash and set aside order passed by the Respondent No.3 - Municipal Commissioner, Ahmednagar City Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar, dated 10th July, 2006 (Exhibit J)." It may be said that prayers (A) and (B) are formal prayers. Prayers (F) to (I) claim interim relief, practically in terms of main relief. There is also residuary prayer clause (1), wherein petitioner has prayed for just and appropriate order in favour of petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. Prayers (F) to (I) claim interim relief, practically in terms of main relief. There is also residuary prayer clause (1), wherein petitioner has prayed for just and appropriate order in favour of petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Writ Petition No.5376/2006, Sandeep has prayed, thus : "(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Resultation (resolution) dated 306-2006 of the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, prepared by the Respondent No.5 declaring the Respondent No.6 as elected Mayor and invalidating the nomination form of the petitioner." Prayer clause (A) is formal. By prayer clauses (C) & (D), interim relief for staying the operation and execution of the impugned resolution is prayed for. Prayer clause (E) is residuary clause in the same words as prayer clause (J) in the first writ petition. It may be said that, as the factual matrix we are going to give in the next paragraph reflects, both petitioners claim to have been elected as Mayor in the special meeting held on 30-6-2006 and in addition petitioner Sandeep claims that respondent no.7 - Deepak SuI in first writ petition, was elected as Deputy Mayor in a meeting on the same day, which was followed immediately after election of Sandeep as Mayor and presided over by Sandeep. Taking the prayer clauses in the two petitions, it can be said that Deep desires quashment of the elections in which Sandeep claims to have been elected as Mayor and Deepak Sul to have been elected as Deputy Mayor immediately thereafter. Similarly, Sandeep desires quashment of election of Deep as Mayor. 3. Factual matrix, to the extent the same is not disputed, can be narrated as follows: The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmednagar was constituted by a notification under Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution on 30-6-2003. Formerly it was a Municipal Council and the Corporation was constituted for a larger urban area. Deep, Sandeep (the two petitioners, henceforth are being referred to by their first names for the sake of brevity and convenience) and ex-Mayor Shri. Bhagwan Fulsaunder, were elected Councillors of the first Corporation in the elections held on 14-12-2003. It appears that Shri. Fulsaunder was elected as first Mayor since constitution of the Corporation soon after first election of the Corporation (and Shri. Dnyaneshwar Khandre was then elected as first Deputy Mayor). It appears that Shri. Fulsaunder was elected as first Mayor since constitution of the Corporation soon after first election of the Corporation (and Shri. Dnyaneshwar Khandre was then elected as first Deputy Mayor). As per Section 19(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, as amended by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act No.25/2000, tenure of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, being of two and half years, term of M/s. Fulsaunder and Khandre was to come to an end on 30-6-2006. Consequently, a special meeting was convened for electing new Mayor and Deputy Mayor on 30-6-2006. Copies of documents filed by two petitioners are common to quite considerable extent. Ordinarily we are referring to the documents from Writ Petition No.5146/2006 and by page numbers of the documents in that writ petition, except for those documents, which we refer from Writ Petition No.5376/2006, because copy of that document is not filed in Writ Petition No.5146/2006. As can be seen from paper book pages 31 & 32 (Exhibit A), the notice dated 22-6-2006 was issued by Nagar Sachiv (Secretary - respondent no.4) of the Corporation convening special meeting for election of new Mayor and Deputy Mayor on Friday 30-6-2006 at 11 a.m. It was clearly stated in the notice that in the light of provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005, the meeting shall be presided over by Shri. Bhagwan Fulsaunder (outgoing Mayor) and the meeting for election of Deputy Mayor shall be presided over by newly elected Mayor. It is evident from this notice that elections of incumbents to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was the only subject on the agenda. This notice was accompanied by election programme. The period 23-6-2006 to 26-6-2006 was fixed for obtaining nomination forms from the Secretary of the Corporation between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., of course by excluding holidays. The period for filing nominations also with the Secretary of the Corporation was congruent with the period of obtaining the nomination forms. This notice was accompanied by election programme. The period 23-6-2006 to 26-6-2006 was fixed for obtaining nomination forms from the Secretary of the Corporation between 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., of course by excluding holidays. The period for filing nominations also with the Secretary of the Corporation was congruent with the period of obtaining the nomination forms. Thus, nominations could be filed till 26-6-2006 by 3 p.m. It was indicated that scrutiny of the nominations will be made on the day of the meeting and immediately after commencement of the meeting, that there will be 15 minutes time after the scrutiny for withdrawal and the polling was scheduled to take place immediately after expiry of the time for withdrawal, if there were more than one candidates in the fray. As can be seen from Exhibit B (paper book page 33), 6 candidates had totally filed 9 nomination papers. Deep had filed 2, Sandeep had filed 3 and there were 4 others, who had filed one nomination each. What happened at the meeting immediately after it commenced at 11 a.m., according to the version of Deep, is depicted in the minutes, copies of which are filed at paper book pages 51 & 52. Exhibit E (page 51) is minute of the meeting, as prepared and signed by outgoing Mayor Shri. Fulsaunder and this is also borrowed in the proceeding book of the Corporation. Exhibit F (page 52) is further minute of the meeting, as prepared by petitioner Deep. It is common ground that this Exhibit F is not borrowed in the proceeding book of the Corporation. As per Exhibit E, which can be said to be the version of outgoing Mayor regarding how the meeting proceeded, the meeting commenced at 11 a.m. Deputy Commissioner, who was in-charge Commissioner, read over rules to the House (presumably 2005 Rules). Thereafter, scrutiny of the nominations was carried. Both nominations of petitioner Deep were found valid. So far as nomination of four others namely Anant Joshi, Bahimath Wakle, Anil Borude and Suresh Shelke, their nominations were held invalid by observing that the proposers and seconders on these nomination papers had given letters on 29-6-2006 itself informing that they have not signed those nominations. We have perused these original letters and the description in the minute is wrong. We have perused these original letters and the description in the minute is wrong. On reference to such communication dated 29-6-2006 by one Sanjay Fulchand Chopda, he has narrated that he has signed the nomination form for the election of Mayor filled in by Shelke Suresh Chhaburao, but he has signed it through oversight. He has, therefore, requested that the nomination form may be cancelled. (Thus, this is not a case where signatures were denied, but signatories claimed to have signed through oversight). So far as nomination of Sandeep is concerned, Shri. Fulsaunder has recorded that on the basis of written complaint by Deep that nominations of Sandeep were invalid, the nominations of Sandeep were held invalid. It is recorded that written complaints were received against nomination of Sandeep from Deep and 4 other Councillors. In other words, Presiding Officer appears to have accepted the contentions in the written complaint of Deep as sufficient grounds to hold the nominations of Sandeep to be invalid. The minute is concluded by observing that since nomination of Deep alone remained to be the valid nomination, being single candidate in the fray, he was declared elected Mayor and thereafter Shri. Fulsaunder handed over the charge to the newly elected Mayor Deep Narayan Chavan. So far as minute prepared by petitioner Deep (Exhibit F), he has recorded that when the charge was handed over to the newly elected Mayor (i.e. Deep himself) by the outgoing Mayor, some Councillors started shouting and also physical violence. In the same chaotic condition, Presiding Officer declared election of Deputy Mayor, bedlam in the House reached to the highest pitch and it became difficult to conduct the meeting. It was atmosphere of insecurity for female Councillors. Hence, taking into consideration such state of affairs, the Presiding Officer adjourned the meeting for 3 days without conducting the same for election of Deputy Mayor. As already stated hereinabove, this minute prepared by Deep is not recorded in the proceeding book of the Corporation, which is produced for our inspection. What happened on the same day at and after 4 p.m. can be gathered from the contentions raised by Sandeep and the same is evident from paper book pages 53 to 57. It appears that ex-Mayor, newly elected Mayor and some Councillors left the House. What happened on the same day at and after 4 p.m. can be gathered from the contentions raised by Sandeep and the same is evident from paper book pages 53 to 57. It appears that ex-Mayor, newly elected Mayor and some Councillors left the House. It is the claim of Sandeep that outgoing Mayor left the venue without completing the procedure of election of new Mayor. As the rules did not permit cancellation or adjournment of the meeting, Sunil proposed Namdeo Pawar to be the Presiding Officer. The proposal was seconded by CouncillorVijay Gavale. Therefore, as per unanimous view, Shri. Namdeo Pawar acted as Presiding Officer since 4 p.m. On reference of pages 53 to 57, it is evident that Shri. Namdeo Pawar is said to have carried out scrutiny of the nomination papers-and he found nomination papers of all 6 candidates to be valid. (On perusal of original papers, we have noticed that an endorsement to that effect is recorded on each nomination paper by Shri. Pawar). 15 minutes time was granted for withdrawal from 4.15 p.m. onwards and after expiry of these 15 minutes, Presiding Officer invited the members to vote in favour of Sandeep Kotkar. As per rules, the voting is by raising of hands and the names of persons voting in favour of particular candidate are required to be recorded in the proceeding book. 37 Councillors voted in favour of Sandeep and their names were accordingly recorded. Thereafter, Presiding Officer also called out names of Deep Chavan, Anant Joshi, Anil Borude, Bahirnath Wakle and Suresh Shelke in that order. It is recorded that nobody voted in favour of these 5 candidates. A list of 24 Councillors is recorded indicating that they were absent at the time of voting. This list includes all these 5 candidates as also ex-Mayor and ex-Deputy Mayor Shri. Khandre. 4 Councillors are recorded to be absent for the meeting. This completes the tally of 65 Councillors; 37, who voted in favour of Sandeep; 24, who were absent when the voting "I took place for election of Sandeep, and 4, who were totally absent. The minute also indicates that after this election, Sandeep took over as new Mayor and conducted the election for new Deputy Mayor during which respondent no.7 Deepak Sul was elected practically by the same procedure as in the case of election for Mayor. The minute also indicates that after this election, Sandeep took over as new Mayor and conducted the election for new Deputy Mayor during which respondent no.7 Deepak Sul was elected practically by the same procedure as in the case of election for Mayor. From above narration, it remains undisputed position that meeting, which commenced at 11 a.m. had a hick-up within half an hour and then the meeting resumed at 4 p.m. What must have happened in the intervening period is evident from paper book page 255. This is an application submitted to the Commissioner by Sandeep. However, it is signed by as many as 37 Councillors including Sandeep. By this application, these Councillors have requested the Commissioner to complete the election process by appointing senior Councillor as Presiding Officer. It is informed that the meeting commenced at 11 a.m. under the chairmanship of outgoing Mayor Shri. Fulsaunder. He did not inform the House as to how many nominations were received. While carrying out scrutiny, he did not allow the candidates an opportunity to explain, he did not take any entry in the proceeding book about nominations received or regarding the objections. He did not sign anywhere in the proceeding book and he left the venue without completing election process. It is informed that the election for Mayor has not at all taken place. In the concluding para, it is alleged that Shri. Fulsaunder belongs to Shiv Sena and he has support of BJP. Deep Chavan, being a candidate for the office of Mayor on behalf of Shiv Sena - BJP Alliance, Shri. Fulsaunder declared rejection of nomination of Sandeep without giving any reason and left the venue by declaring that Deep Chavan was elected. It is also alleged that proceeding of this meeting is not recorded in the proceeding book and hence the things recorded in video cassette will not be legally admissible in evidence. The application is concluded by saying that Shri. Fulsaunder left the meeting without electing the Mayor and with a prayer for carrying out the meeting further under the chairmanship of senior Councillor of the Corporation. Some events occurred after these two elections of two Mayors, which can be gathered from paper book pages 58, 63 & 64. The application is concluded by saying that Shri. Fulsaunder left the meeting without electing the Mayor and with a prayer for carrying out the meeting further under the chairmanship of senior Councillor of the Corporation. Some events occurred after these two elections of two Mayors, which can be gathered from paper book pages 58, 63 & 64. It appears that being confronted with unprecedented situation, the Commissioner wrote to Principal Secretary (II), Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay apprising him of all the events those took place on 30-6-2006. He also expressed his opinion in the communication to the effect that nominations can be rejected only on the grounds provided in Rule 6(2) i.e. which do not comply with requirement of Rule 4, that outgoing Mayor departed from the venue by illegally declaring the result, he concluded the meeting in a defective manner and the remaining Councillors concluded the meeting by electing Shri. Namdeo Pawar, the senior most Councillor as Presiding Officer. He has expressed that election of Sandeep is as per rules of procedure and the part of the meeting conducted by Shri. Fulsaunder was illegal. He, therefore, requested for cancellation of the proceeding to the extent that was conducted by Shri. Fulsaunder. This communication was responded by Deputy Secretary in the Department of Urban Development vide communication dated 6-72006 (Exhibit I). It is informed that the proceeding conducted by Shri. Fulsaunder can not be cancelled by exercising the powers u/s. 451 of BPMC Act. He has advised the Commissioner that the Commissioner is not bound to act upon illegal resolution and, therefore, he has directed the Commissioner to take action in accordance with belief and conviction of the Commissioner. The communication is concluded by advising that the Commissioner may seek legal advice from legal expert or Court, if deemed necessary. It is evident from Exhibit J (page 64) that the Commissioner, on 10-7-2006 issued an order informing all concerned i.e. Principal Secretary in the Urban Development Department, Collector, Ahmednagar; Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, as also Sandeep, Deepak Sul and Deep informing that Sandeep and Deepak were elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor in a valid manner and in accordance with the rules. 4. 4. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 456-A(1) and proviso to sub-section (2) of the BPMC Act, 1949, the Government of Maharashtra has framed rules titled as the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Conduct of Elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005 which are published in Maharashtra Government gazette Part IA dated 11-5-2005. The rules are brought into force at once as contained in Rule 1 sub-Rule (2) of the same. Both the sides have placed reliance upon certain rules, in order to demonstrate as to how respective meetings in which adversaries claim to have been elected as Mayor are vitiated, due to breach of the rules and at times, those are also referred for the purpose of supporting a contention that he himself is validly elected by due observance and compliance of all the rules. Provisions referred and relied upon may usefully be reproduced herein below for ready reference: Rule 3 is pertaining to convening of the special meeting for election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. It is titled as "Special meeting of the Corporation". The Municipal Secretary is required to convene the same in consultation with the outgoing Mayor and in case the Mayor is to be elected after general elections, in consultation with the Municipal Commissioner. The date to be fixed should be such that the Councillors get at least 3 clear days prior to such meeting for filing their nominations. If we refer to the notice dated 22-6-2006 (paper book pages 31 & 32), it can be seen that the same complies with the requirements of Rule 3 Sub-rules (1) & (2). Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 reads as follows: "3(3). The special meeting so called, shall not be cancelled or adjourned." As per Rule 4, which gives the procedure for submission of nomination papers, the same is required to be in Form I, it is required to be submitted to Municipal Secretary on the day/s fixed for filling nomination. It is expected to bear the name of the candidate in full subscribed by one Councillor as proposer and another as seconder. No Councillor can propose or second nomination of more than one candidate. Candidates have liberty to file more than one nominations, but not exceeding four. Rule 5 pertaining to presiding authority reads thus : "5. It is expected to bear the name of the candidate in full subscribed by one Councillor as proposer and another as seconder. No Councillor can propose or second nomination of more than one candidate. Candidates have liberty to file more than one nominations, but not exceeding four. Rule 5 pertaining to presiding authority reads thus : "5. Presiding Authority: (1) The special meeting to elect the Mayor shall be presided over by the existing Mayor or in his absence by the Deputy Mayor. (2) If the existing Mayor or the Deputy Mayor is contesting the election to the post of Mayor he shall not be entitled to preside over the meeting. (3) If Mayor or the Deputy Mayor is so prohibited to preside over the meeting under the provisions of foregoing sub-rule, the senior most elected member of the Corporation shall preside over the meeting." As per Rule 6(1), all nominations received by the Secretary are required to be handed over to the Presiding Officer on the day of the meeting and Presiding Authority is expected to carry out the scrutiny. By virtue of sub-rule (3), the candidates have liberty to withdraw the nomination within 15 minutes from the time the list of validly nominated candidates is read over. So far as scrutiny of the nomination Rule 6(2) read as follows: "6. Scrutiny of nomination and withdrawal of candidature: (1)...... (2) The presiding authority shall scrutinise all the nominations so received and may reject the nominations subscribed in contravention of Rule 4. The presiding authority shall then read out the names of all validly nominated candidates." Rule 7 runs into 11 sub-rules and that is regarding the procedure to be followed for the election and declaration of the election result. The voting is by show of hands. The names of the candidates are required to be announced by the presiding authority in alphabetical order. Voting pattern is required to be reduced into writing. The presiding authority, apart from recording the proceedings in writing, is obliged to cause the proceeding to be recorded by way of videograph and the Municipal Secretary is expected to assist the presiding authority in conducting the election process and recording the proceedings of the meeting (sub-rules 10 & 11). Voting pattern is required to be reduced into writing. The presiding authority, apart from recording the proceedings in writing, is obliged to cause the proceeding to be recorded by way of videograph and the Municipal Secretary is expected to assist the presiding authority in conducting the election process and recording the proceedings of the meeting (sub-rules 10 & 11). Upon reference to the original proceeding book, it is evident that pattern of voting is not recorded so far as proceeding of the meeting that was conducted at 11 a.m. According to learned counsel for Deep, it is for obvious reasons, because Deep was the only candidate, who remained in the fray and, therefore, as per Rule 7(1), he was declared duly elected candidate by the Presiding Officer. So far as minute of the proceeding of the meeting wherein Sandeep as Mayor and Deepak as Deputy Mayor are claimed to have been elected, the voting pattern is recorded and defect, if any, may be about the chronology in which the names ought to have been called. The candidates in the fray at that time were (1) Kotkar Sandeep; (2) Chavan Deep; (3) Joshi Anant; (4) Borude Anil; (5) Wakle Tukaram; and (6) Shelke Chhaburao. As per minute of the said meeting recorded, the names were called in that order, on reference to Rule 7 (3), presiding authority is expected to announce the name of each contesting candidate in the alphabetical order and take voting by show of hands. It is not clear whether alphabetical order of the names as in Devnagari is to be followed or as in Roman script is to be followed. The word used is name and not surname. Although Rule 4 states that the nomination paper shall bear the name of the candidate in full, the same does not say that it shall be beginning with surname. Therefore, inspite of Rule 7(3), it is not clear whether first alphabet of the name or surname is to govern the chronology in which candidates are to be arranged and announced and whether alphabet in accordance with English or in accordance with Devnagari script are to be taken into consideration. On taking into consideration the names as stated above, Sandeep can be first candidate only if the surname is the governing part of the same and Marathi alphabet and surname are the governing factors for fixing the chronology. On taking into consideration the names as stated above, Sandeep can be first candidate only if the surname is the governing part of the same and Marathi alphabet and surname are the governing factors for fixing the chronology. If English alphabets of first name are taken, then Anant and Anil would be at Sr.Nos.1 & 2 and if English alphabets of surname are to be taken into account, it will be Mis. Borude and Chavan, who would top the list. Even if first Devnagari alphabet of the name is taken, then also Anant and Anil will top the list. We have reproduced gist of rules, which are relevant and text of those sub-rules, which were laid emphasis by respective counsel. 5. Certain provisions from Act were also referred. Since the learned counsel for Deep contended that if according to Sandeep, election of Deep was invalid or vitiated, he had alternative remedy of election petition, for the purpose, he has placed reliance upon Section 16(1) of the Act, which reads as follows: "16. Election petitions: (1) If the qualification of any person declared to be elected a councillor is disputed, or if the validity of any election is questioned, whether by reason of the improper rejection by the State Election Commissioner of a nomination, or of the improper reception or refusal of a vote, or by reason of a material irregularity in the election proceedings, corrupt practice, or any other thing materially affecting the result of the election, any person enrolled in the municipal election roll may, at any time within ten days after the result of the election has been declared submit an application to the Judge for the determination of the dispute or question." It is pertinent to note that this provision regarding election petition follows all the sections pertaining to elections of the Corporation. Provision regarding elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayor contained in Section 19 and after Section 19, there is no provision indicating any further election petitions. Although learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh has placed heavy reliance upon the underlined clause in an attempt to persuade us that any election would include also the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, further text of sub-section (1) rules out the interpretation as tried to be advanced by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh. Although learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh has placed heavy reliance upon the underlined clause in an attempt to persuade us that any election would include also the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, further text of sub-section (1) rules out the interpretation as tried to be advanced by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh. The grounds those are available for challenging the validity of election include improper rejection of nomination by the State Election Commissioner, which is . not the authority to carry out Scrutiny of nominations filed for the election of Mayor or Deputy Mayor. From the latter half of the section, it is evident that any person enrolled in the Municipal election roll can file election petition. Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, being indirect election, the fact that any voter is allowed to challenge the election certainly leads to inference that the election petition referred in Section 16 is petition challenging the election of a Councillor and not that of Mayor/Deputy Mayor. Relevant portion of Section 19 pertaining to election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor reads as follows: "19. Mayor and Deputy Mayor: (1) The Corporation shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A), at its first meeting after the general elections, elect from amongst the Councillors one of its number to be the Mayor and another to be the Deputy Mayor. The tenure of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor shall be of two and a half years: Provided that ....... ... ................ (2) The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor shall hold office until a new Mayor and a new Deputy Mayor have been elected under subsection (1) and, in a year in which general elections have been held, shall do so notwithstanding that they have not been returned as councillors on the results of the elections. (3) A retiring Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall be eligible for re-election to either office." On reference to Section 19(1), it can be seen that the term of Mayor/Deputy Mayor is changed to two and half years by Maharashtra Act No.25/2000. Section 10(1) speaks about holding the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the first meeting of the Corporation after the general elections. Earlier the tenure of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was 5 years and co-terminus with the term of the Corporation. Section 10(1) speaks about holding the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor at the first meeting of the Corporation after the general elections. Earlier the tenure of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was 5 years and co-terminus with the term of the Corporation. As a result of change in the tenure of Mayor, there is requirement of more than one Mayors during the tenure of the Corporation. (There was period during which the tenure of Mayor was initially kept one year only). This requirement of more elections than one during 5 years period of House for electing Mayor and Deputy Mayor makes Rule 19(1), to some extent; inapplicable to the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, when it is not for election of first Mayor/Deputy Mayor soon after election of the Corporation. Probably, this was the situation that compelled the State to come out with Rules, 2005. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. P. M. Shah has placed reliance upon sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 19. As rightly submitted by him, outgoing Mayor and Deputy Mayor, after general elections, notwithstanding that they are not returned as Councillors in general election, can hold office until new Mayor and new Deputy Mayor are elected. According to learned Senior Counsel, probably, this situation compelled the State to enact sub-section 3(3), which forbids cancellation or adjournment of the meeting convened for the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The House has to complete the election and then only the meeting is to come to an end. Probably, the bar is aimed at preventing outgoing Mayor from continuing in the office at his pleasure by adjourning the meeting repeatedly or sine die and if the power to adjourn is left to outgoing Mayor, a possibility can not be ruled out that he would successfully continue in the office, although not re-elected as a Councillor and, though, he is not a member of the new Corporation. We have no reason to disagree with the philosophy as propounded by learned Senior Counsel for framing Rule 3 sub-rule (3). Similarly, it can be seen that Rule 5 sub-rule (3) must have been necessitated by Section 19(3) since outgoing Mayor and Deputy Mayor are eligible for re-election, taking into consideration the possibility of their unavailability to preside over the election meeting, the rules have made provision for senior most Councillor to be the Presiding Officer. 6. Similarly, it can be seen that Rule 5 sub-rule (3) must have been necessitated by Section 19(3) since outgoing Mayor and Deputy Mayor are eligible for re-election, taking into consideration the possibility of their unavailability to preside over the election meeting, the rules have made provision for senior most Councillor to be the Presiding Officer. 6. Before the learned counsel for respective parties commenced their arguments, we had briefed them as to how we cut the task for each side. We had hinted the lawyers that so far as Deep is concerned, he will have to demonstrate that he is validly elected Mayor and if he succeeds in doing so, that would serve his purpose, because thereafter there could not have been further meeting for atleast election of Mayor. So far as Sandeep is concerned, he has comparatively arduous task. He has not only to demonstrate that Deep is not validly elected Mayor, but he has also to substantiate that the meeting, in which he was declared as elected Mayor, was a legally valid meeting. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel Shri. Hon had placed reliance upon some subsequent actions by Sandeep, such as, his claiming to have taken over the charge, his having conducted the meeting for election of Deputy Mayor etc. Although subsequent conduct as influenced by the fact, would support the contention that Sandeep was elected Mayor, we would describe it that it would support his belief that he was validly elected Mayor. 7. During the heat of the arguments, some disputed questions of fact, at times peeped their heads. We had clearly indicated the Advocates to refrain from raising disputed questions of fact, by pointing out that we may not be able to decide the disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, and in case the parties believe that adjudication of the writ petition depends upon the disputed questions of fact, writ petition may not be the appropriate remedy. We had clearly indicated the Advocates to refrain from raising disputed questions of fact, by pointing out that we may not be able to decide the disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, and in case the parties believe that adjudication of the writ petition depends upon the disputed questions of fact, writ petition may not be the appropriate remedy. For example, there occurred or not chaos or bedlam after some time since commencement of the meeting at 11 a.m. and before departure of ex-Mayor, Deep and his supporters; whether ex-Mayor verbally declared Deep elected or he did not; when did Deep take charge, whether immediately after declaration of his election by ex-Mayor, as recorded in the proceeding book (page 51) or in the evening as said by Deep in his petition; whether ex-Mayor has signed the proceeding book at 11 a.m. meeting after 217-2006. However, after pointing out the legal position as above, the learned counsel have refrained from developing their arguments any further on the basis of such disputed questions of fact. So far as signature of ex-Mayor on the proceeding book pertaining to 11 a.m. meeting, Advocate Shri. Mukul Kulkarni has submitted that what is recorded in the proceeding book is a copy of minute handed over by Shri. Fulsaunder, which is at page 51. When the proceeding book was written, Shri. Fulsaunder was not available to sign and that is why certified copy obtained by Sandeep (xerox) does not bear signature of Shri. Fulsaunder in the proceeding book, which was subsequently obtained. We are not inclined to enter the discussion for deciding these disputed questions of fact. The picture of occurrences, as reproduced in para 2 above suffices the purpose so far as adjudication of these two writ petitions are concerned. We have referred to original proceeding book as also all nomination papers and annexures appended to those as and when required during the course of arguments and which were made available by Senior Counsel representing respondent nos.3 & 4. Till conclusion of the arguments, we did not find it necessary to sit down to watch the VCD in which the proceedings of the day are videographed. Dated: 10-8-2006 8. Till conclusion of the arguments, we did not find it necessary to sit down to watch the VCD in which the proceedings of the day are videographed. Dated: 10-8-2006 8. Apart from raising questions of fact, such as Shri. Fulsaunder did not conduct the election meeting at all, he did not carry out scrutiny of nomination papers or that he did not declare Deep as elected, only one point is raised challenging the election of Deep. It is contended that while carrying out the scrutiny of nomination papers, Presiding Officer has travelled beyond his powers as conferred by Rule (2) of Rules, 2005. At the outset, it must be said that questions of fact raised on behalf of Sandeep are not at all sustainable due to contents in the application/representation submitted by him to the Commissioner, on behalf of as many as 37 Councillors (page 255). At the cost of repetition, we may quote few extracts from the same, which clearly indicate that Shri. Fulsaunder atleast acted in such a manner that he created a picture of a meeting in which Deep was elected as Mayor. Sandeep may be justified in drawing an inference that ex-Mayor conducted the meeting in a pre-determined manner so as to ensure declaration of election of Deep as Mayor. In fact, he has not spared words in making such allegations even in that application to the Commissioner. Such an inference may also be reasonable from the strength of rival camps as can be calculated from "walk out" after that declaration and polling strength of the meeting in which Sandeep claims to have been elected i.e. 24 : 37 (4 were totally absent, 24 were present at 11 a.m., but not at 4 p.m. and hence they are described as "walk out" strength, and 37 voted in favour of Sandeep). Yet it may not be open to say that nothing had taken place towards election of Mayor, after commencement of meeting in the morning at 11 O'clock. Following extracts from his (Sandeep's) own application, counter any such argument on behalf of Sandeep : Today at 11 a.m., process for election of Mayor began under the chairmanship of Presiding Officer Mayor Bhagwan Fulsaunder. Following extracts from his (Sandeep's) own application, counter any such argument on behalf of Sandeep : Today at 11 a.m., process for election of Mayor began under the chairmanship of Presiding Officer Mayor Bhagwan Fulsaunder. Shri. Deep Chavan being a candidate of Shiv Sena - BJP alliance for the post of Mayor, Shri. Bhagwan Fulsaunder rejected the nominations of Shri. Sandeep Bhanudas Kotkar without giving any reasons and by declaring that Deep Chavan was elected as Mayor, he left the venue. Even ignoring the conflicting claims as to what else happened in that meeting (according to Deep, Municipal Secretary read over the rules, Presiding Officer rejected nominations of other 4 candidates also and exMayor also handed over charge to him as elected Mayor), statements of Sandeep quoted hereinabove are sufficient to confirm that Shri. Fulsaunder atleast made a show of carrying out scrutiny of nominations till Deep alone could be said to be validly nominated candidate. In view of these statements by Sandeep himself in his representation to the Commissioner and which was signed by all 37 remaining Councillors, it is not open for Sandeep to say that Shri. Fulsaunder had left the venue without taking any actions towards election of Mayor. Because of these statements, fact that Shri. Fulsaunder did not endorse rejection on each of the nomination papers rejected or that he did not record the reasons for such rejection or that he has not signed the proceedings in the proceeding book of the Corporation, become insignificant to quite a considerable extent. 9. This brings us to consider whether Rule 6(2) was observed in breach, as contended on behalf of Sandeep, and if yes, whether that vitiates the election of Deep. We have already reproduced text of Rule 6(2) verbatim hereinabove. It was submitted by learned counsel for Deep that the grounds available for rejection of nomination papers as embodied within the text of Rule 6(2) are not exhaustive and application can be rejected on other grounds as well. It is evident from the minute prepared by Shri. Fulsaunder that he rejected the nominations of Sandeep on the basis of reasons/complaints as incorporated in the written complaints submitted by Deep and 4 others. The text of these objections is available and can be read as follows (paper book pages 41& 42). "(1). It is evident from the minute prepared by Shri. Fulsaunder that he rejected the nominations of Sandeep on the basis of reasons/complaints as incorporated in the written complaints submitted by Deep and 4 others. The text of these objections is available and can be read as follows (paper book pages 41& 42). "(1). In fact, nomination form originally filled in by Shri. San deep Bhanudas Kotkar on 18-11-2003 as a candidate for election from Ward No.7, affidavit and annexure to the same are totally false, misleading and wrong. True copies of these documents are annexed to the complaint; (2) Regarding this false information, the matter is being pursued with State Election Commission as .per circular dated 11-8-2005, yet competent authorities from Ahmednagar District have failed to take any action, because they are in collusion with Shri. Sandeep Bhanudas Kotkar. True copies of documents are annexed to the complaint (in testimony of the averment); (3) Shri. Sandeep Bhanudas Kotkar and his family members are involved in the offences regarding Goonda tendency, dacoities, prohibition, danger to life, assault, illegal use of weapons etc. and documentary evidence to that effect is filed in the form of true copies. (4) Shri. Sandeep Bhanudas Kotkar, Shri. Bhanudas Eknath Kotkar and Sow. Surekha Kotkar are joint family. Inspite of amassing properties worth crores of rupees, they have furnished false information. True copies regarding documents of properties owned by them are annexed." These are the grounds accepted by Presiding Officer Shri. Fulsaunder for rejection of all nomination papers filed by Sandeep. It does not need elaborate discussion. These grounds do not attract Rule 6(2) of Rules, 2005. To remind ourselves, Rule 6(2) says, "may reject the nominations subscribed in contravention of Rule 4". Thus, the requirement of Rule 6 for a nomination paper to be valid, appears to be each nomination paper subscribed by one Councillor as proposer and another Councillor as seconder. These proposers and seconders also must not subscribe nomination papers of any other candidate. On going to the text of Rule 6(2), it is so worded that there is nothing to infer that the grounds for rejection of the nomination are illustrative. There is no use of word etc. These proposers and seconders also must not subscribe nomination papers of any other candidate. On going to the text of Rule 6(2), it is so worded that there is nothing to infer that the grounds for rejection of the nomination are illustrative. There is no use of word etc. or any other phrase, which will indicate the discretion to the Presiding Officer to enlarge the scope regarding grounds for rejection an in fact there is only one ground quoted i.e. subscription of the nomination is contravention of Rule 4. We can not avoid a feeling that the use of phrase "may reject" gives the provision a form of discretionary powers of the Presiding Officer. We may not hesitate to observe that such liberal construction of the rule may enable the Presiding Officer, to invite the candidate to get the subscription corrected, if that is defective or to remove the deficiency, if any, and thereafter allow the councillor to contest for the seat of Mayor or Deputy Mayor, as the case may be. The philosophy behind such liberal construction of the provision of Rule 6(2) is not too difficult to imagine. In order to contest the election for the seat of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, one has to get himself elected as a Councillor. Thus, anybody filling in nomination for the post of Mayor or Deputy Mayor is a duly elected Councillor after having undergone thorough scrutiny of his nomination, qualifications and credentials at the time he filed the same for election as a Councillor. Even in the statute book pertaining to Municipal Corporations i.e. Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, although there are provisions such as Sections 10 & 11 providing for disqualification for being a Councillor and also disabilities for continuing to be a Councillor, there are no specific provisions regarding disqualification or disabilities for Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Of course, we may state here that there was no attempt on the part of learned counsel for Deep to relate the grounds quoted in the complaint and accepted by ex-Mayor for rejecting the nominations of Sandeep to any of the disqualifications or disabilities for being or continuing as a Councillor on the part of Sandeep. Of course, we may state here that there was no attempt on the part of learned counsel for Deep to relate the grounds quoted in the complaint and accepted by ex-Mayor for rejecting the nominations of Sandeep to any of the disqualifications or disabilities for being or continuing as a Councillor on the part of Sandeep. So far as other 4 candidates are concerned, as already discussed earlier, the proposers and seconders, who have subscribed their nomination papers had withdrawn their support by tendering letters on 29-6-2006 to the effect that they have subscribed the nominations under misconception. Probably, Shri. Fulsaunder could have been justified in rejecting the nominations of those 4 candidates, unless he was inclined to invite the candidates to make the deficiency good, if they so desired on the spur of moment. Taking into consideration the text of Rule 6(2); as also absence of any provisions regarding disqualification or disabilities for getting elected or continuation as Mayor/Deputy Mayor, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh that Rule 6(2) should be given wider interpretation. Shri. Fulsaunder, therefore, could not have rejected the nominations of Sandeep for the reasons he did so. It is settled legal position that statutory authority must perform the statutory duty in the manner prescribed by the statute. Otherwise, the actions are bound to be labelled as illegal / arbitrary etc. Rejection of the nomination of Sandeep, thus is required to be branded as illegal, since the reasons accepted by Shri. Fulsaunder for rejection of those were not available to him by provisions of Rules, 2005. The rejection of nominations has also caused considerable effect on the process of election. Although we feel that Shri. Fulsaunder was justified in rejecting the nominations of other 4 candidates, but for erroneous rejection of nominations of Sandeep, 2 candidates would have remained in fray i.e. Sandeep and Deep. It was necessary that they faced the voting by Councillors present and then only election result could have been declared. Instead, rejection of nominations of Sandeep resulted into declaration of Deep as Mayor elected unopposed. As the rejection was not supported/warranted by Rule 6(2) and as the same has materially affected the election of Mayor, the decision of rejection of nominations of Sandeep as also election of Deep as Mayor, unopposed, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Instead, rejection of nominations of Sandeep resulted into declaration of Deep as Mayor elected unopposed. As the rejection was not supported/warranted by Rule 6(2) and as the same has materially affected the election of Mayor, the decision of rejection of nominations of Sandeep as also election of Deep as Mayor, unopposed, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. The meeting that was held at 4 p.m. onwards and wherein Sandeep claims to have been elected as Mayor as also to have elected Deepak Sul as Deputy Mayor in the part of the meeting presided over by Sandeep himself is challenged mainly on two grounds. (1) After his election as Mayor, which was declared by Shri. Fulsaunder, Deep had taken over as new Mayor. His attempt to conduct election of Deputy Mayor was frustrated because of chaos and bedlam that was created. Consequently, Deep had declared adjournment of the meeting for 3 days for election of Deputy Mayor and these left the venue. According to learned counsel for Deep, therefore, the meeting was over the moment ex-Mayor and newly elected Mayor, who was to preside further part of the meeting had left the venue. (In fact, to support this argument, the learned counsel has persistently argued that the Mayor has powers to adjourn the meeting, which is properly convened and commenced.) (2) The meeting was not presided over by competent Presiding Officer as required by Rule 5(3) i.e. senior most Councillor, because Shri. Namdeo Pawar is younger than Shri. Krishna Jadhav. (To support this argument, parts of voters lists for Corporation elections of 2003 of Ward Nos.14 & 20 are produced. Shri. Namdeo Pawar is at Sr.No.6002 in Ward No.14, where his age is stated to be 47 years. Shri. Krishna Jadhav is at Sr.No.3038 in Ward No.20 wherein his age is stated to be 53 years.) So far as the second point is concerned, if Rule 5 is to be strictly construed, senior most elected Member can preside over the meeting, only if Mayor/Deputy Mayor are not available, because they are contesting the election. Section 19(3) permits ex-Mayor and Deputy Mayor to contest for re-election and that is why Rule 5 makes alternative provision i.e. ordinarily Mayor shall preside and in his absence the Deputy Mayor. Section 19(3) permits ex-Mayor and Deputy Mayor to contest for re-election and that is why Rule 5 makes alternative provision i.e. ordinarily Mayor shall preside and in his absence the Deputy Mayor. Only in case, existing Mayor and Deputy Mayor are contesting the election to the post of Mayor, they are not entitled to preside over the meeting. Being a candidate, they do not forfeit their right of voting and they sit in the House as a Member instead of as a Presiding Officer of the election meeting. Thus, it is evident from Rule 5 that being a presiding authority is not only a privilege, but that is a duty cast upon outgoing Mayor/Deputy Mayor to preside over the special meeting for election of new Mayor. Technically speaking as M/s. Fulsaunder and Dayaneshwar Khandre were not contesting the election for Mayor, the situation for converting a senior most elected Councillor into a Presiding Officer had not at all arisen. There was a debate over interpretation of the word "senior most". According to Advocate Shri. Hon, senior most should be reckoned on the basis of length of tenure in the Council/Corporation and age should not be the factor. As against this, Advocate Shri. Deshmukh propounded that age should be the factor. He also pointed out that in the present case, this was the first Corporation elected in December, 2003 and all the members had equal length of tenure with the Corporation. Atleast in that situation, "senior most" ought to be interpreted to be reckoned by age and not by length of tenure in the House. From the voters list, it can not be disputed that Namdeo Pawar, atleast by age was not the senior most and there is no other material on record to show that there was no other member, who did not have longer tenure in the Council/ Corporation than Shri. Namdeo Pawar. Even if we accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel Shri. Hon that longer tenure in the Council is to be the criteria, the proceeding of the meeting at 4 p.m. recorded does not reflect that Namdeo Pawar was chosen to preside over as "senior most". The proceeding reads : For the purpose of conducting this meeting, it was proposed by Sunil Kotkar that Shri. Namdeo Pawar may be elected as Presiding Officer. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Shri. Vijay Gavale. The proceeding reads : For the purpose of conducting this meeting, it was proposed by Sunil Kotkar that Shri. Namdeo Pawar may be elected as Presiding Officer. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Shri. Vijay Gavale. (The minute further quotes that, therefore, Shri. Namdeo Pawar was unanimously elected to preside over the meeting.) In the application to the Commissioner (page 255), applicants even do not seem to be aware of the requirement that in the absence of Mayor/Deputy Mayor, senior most elected Councillior can act as the Presiding Officer. They have requested Commissioner to appoint some senior Councillor as Presiding Officer. Thus, it must be said that record does not show awareness on the part of either Sandeep or remaining members, who participated in the afternoon meeting that the person competent to preside over the meeting in the absence of Mayor/Deputy Mayor has to be the senior most Councillor of the House. Consequently, there is no material on record to support the argument that Shri. Namdeo Pawar was elected as being senior most. It must, therefore, be said that meeting that was held at 4 p.m. and during which Sandeep was elected as a Mayor was not presided over by the Presiding Officer recognised by Rule 5(3). 11. Our attention was drawn by learned Senior Counsel Shri. P. M. Shah to clauses 1 (g) pertaining to who can be the Presiding Officer and 1(m) pertaining to the powers to adjourn, from chapter II Schedule D of the BPMC Act. It must be taken a note that the chapter is titled as "Proceedings of the Corporation. Standing Committee, Transport Committee etc." and the clauses to which our attention was drawn are under the caption "Proceedings of the Corporation." No doubt, Clause (g) enables any of the Councillor chosen by the meeting to be the Chairman for the occasion, when Mayor and Deputy Mayor are not available. Clause(m), by consent of the majority, enables the Councillors to adjourn the meeting. But it must be borne in mind that these are the rules regarding general proceedings of the Corporation. When the special provisions for the special meeting to elect Mayor and Deputy Mayor are on the statute book, the general provisions need not be referred and more so, when the general provisions may be in conflict with the special provisions. But it must be borne in mind that these are the rules regarding general proceedings of the Corporation. When the special provisions for the special meeting to elect Mayor and Deputy Mayor are on the statute book, the general provisions need not be referred and more so, when the general provisions may be in conflict with the special provisions. It can be said that both the general provisions are partly in conflict with special provisions. So far as adjournment is concerned, Rule 3 sub-rule (3) specifically creates a bar against cancellation or adjournment of the special meeting for election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor. The word "cancellation" would apply to a stage before commencement of the meeting, whereas "adjournment" would apply to a meeting, which has already commenced its proceedings. Liberal provision as contained in Clause 1 (m), therefore, is set at nought by Rule 3(3). Similarly, clause 1 (g), which enables any member elected by the House to adorn the chair of Presiding Officer on the occasion, stands constricted by Rule 5 on two aspects. The third member can act as Presiding Officer only if Mayor or Deputy Mayor is not available for mayoral election, because they are contesting the election for the post of Mayor, the mere absence of Mayor may enable the Deputy Mayor to preside, but mere absence of Mayor and Deputy Mayor both will not enable the Hose to appoint the senior most elected member as Presiding Officer for the special meeting convened for the purpose of election of Mayor. Reading Rule 5 as a whole, Mayor seems to have some liberty of absence in which case Deputy Mayor has to preside. Sub-rule (3) does not make out a room for 6enior most elected member to be Presiding Officer in case of absence. Sub-rule (3) opens with the clause "if Mayor or the Deputy Mayor is so prohibited to preside over .........". The prohibition to preside over is contained only in sub-clause (2) i.e. when Mayor or Deputy Mayor is contesting the election for Mayor. That is why, we have expressed earlier that Section 5 is couched in such words that presiding over the meeting for election of Mayor is not only a privilege, but is a duty cast upon the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. That is why, we have expressed earlier that Section 5 is couched in such words that presiding over the meeting for election of Mayor is not only a privilege, but is a duty cast upon the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. For the sake of argument, if we construe sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 liberally so as to take the both within the ambit of phrase "so prohibited", still the House is not absolved from the duty to conduct the meeting under the chairmanship of senior most elected member of the Corporation. It must, therefore, be said that the special meeting can not be presided by anyone of the Councillors merely because he is unanimously elected by Councillors present. At this stage, with all humility at his credit and apology for not having pointed out the said provision earlier, Advocate Shri. Hon has placed reliance on Section 34 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as the provision saving the proceedings from being vitiated in spite of defect in appointment of Presiding Officer. Section 34 reads thus : "34. No disqualification of or defect in, the election or appointment of any person acting as a councillor, as the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the presiding authority of the Corporation or as the Chairman or a member of any Committee or sub-committee appointed under this Act, shall be deemed to vitiate any act or proceeding of the Corporation or of any such Committee or sub-committee, as the case may be in which such person has taken part provided the majority of the persons who were parties to such act or proceedings were entitled to act." Learned Counsel Shri. Hon desires us to read section 34 as emphasised by the portion underlined, which we quote in the form of a single sentence, hereinbelow. "No defect in appointment of any person acting as presiding authority of the Corporation shall be deemed to vitiate any act or proceeding of the Corporation." Eleventh hour reliance on this section, has sprang some surprise upon us, as also upon learned Counsel for other side. We had also invited Advocate Shri. Deshmukh to submit on the proposition of Advocate Shri. Hon that even if the appointment of Shri. Namdeo Pawar as Presiding Officer be defective, that would not vitiate the proceedings of the Corporation, those were conducted during the meeting presided over by Shri. Namdeo Pawar. We had also invited Advocate Shri. Deshmukh to submit on the proposition of Advocate Shri. Hon that even if the appointment of Shri. Namdeo Pawar as Presiding Officer be defective, that would not vitiate the proceedings of the Corporation, those were conducted during the meeting presided over by Shri. Namdeo Pawar. Advocate Shri. Deshmukh has come out with two-fold reply. According to him, it will come into play in the cases wherein disqualification in the election (of Councillor, Mayor or Deputy Mayor) or defect in the appointment of the Presiding Authority of the Corporation is incurred, after particular proceeding and it will not protect the proceeding of a meeting for which appointment of the Presiding Authority was inherently defective as is the case of appointment of Shri. Namdeo Pawar in this case. So far as disqualification in the election of a Councillor, on reference to Sections 10 and 11 of the BPMC Act together it can be said that atleast in the title of the two Sections, use of word "disqualification" is to the reason for incompetence for being elected and disqualification incurred after election is labelled as "disability to continue". "Defect in appointment" clubbed together with "disqualification in election" must be said to be referable to the time of appointment itself. As a second limb of his arguments, he submitted that special meeting governed by Rules 2005, is not a "proceeding of Corporation". The section is for the purpose of saving proceedings of normal business to be transacted by the Corporation, may be, such as decisions of the standing committee, the decision of the Corporation on various issues for the purpose of providing civil amenities, financial aspects thereof, etc. In other words, according to Advocate Shri. Deshmukh, meeting for election of the Mayor/Deputy Mayor must stand on different footing than ordinary transaction of all other business of the Corporation. On reading the provision as analysed by Advocate Shri. Hon, for the purpose of appointments, the groups of words "defect in appointment of any person acting as the Presiding Authority of Corporation" does not admit interpretation as argued by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh. "Defect in appointment" shall always mean at the stage of appointment itself. As a natural course of business, if defect is noticed before such person participating in the proceedings, ordinarily, he may be removed and any other person would be appointed. "Defect in appointment" shall always mean at the stage of appointment itself. As a natural course of business, if defect is noticed before such person participating in the proceedings, ordinarily, he may be removed and any other person would be appointed. But if the defect is subsequently realised after such person with defective appointment participates in the proceedings, Section 34 seems to save such proceedings, provided the majority of the persons who were parties to such proceedings were entitled to act. About second submission, whether the proceedings of election of a special meeting are proceedings of the Corporation, which, according to Advocate Shri. Deshmukh are not, we are required to refer to Chapter II in Schedule D. It is evident that, by virtue of Clause 1 (g) every meeting of the Corporation is required to be presided over by the Mayor and in his absence by Deputy Mayor and in absence of both, by a substitute. Clause (1)(b) in this Chapter takes within its sweep the first meeting of the Corporation after general election. On reference to Section 19 pertaining to election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, it is evident that the Corporation is expected at its first meeting after general elections to elect from amongst the councillors, one of its members, to be Mayor and another to be Deputy Mayor. The phrase, "proceedings of the Corporation" is not defined anywhere in the Act. However, if we read clauses 1 (a) and 1 (g) from Chapter II, in Schedule D pertaining to proceedings of the Corporation, together with section 19(1) pertaining to election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, it may not be possible to say that the meeting of election of a Mayor or Deputy Mayor, although designated as special meeting, is not the proceeding of the Corporation. The submission of Advocate Shri. Hon, that defect in the appointment of Shri. Namdeo Pawar as presiding authority may not vitiate the proceeding of that meeting, therefore, appears to be well founded. 12. In their battle, whether the meeting convened for election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor can be adjourned or not, reliance was placed by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh on the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrakant Khaire Vs. Dr. Shantaram Kale and others, ( (1988)4 SCC 577 ). 12. In their battle, whether the meeting convened for election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor can be adjourned or not, reliance was placed by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh on the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrakant Khaire Vs. Dr. Shantaram Kale and others, ( (1988)4 SCC 577 ). It was submitted by Advocate Shri. Deshmukh that a meeting properly convened, once commenced, can be adjourned by the presiding officer or the house. Advocate Shri. Hon was of the diagonally opposite view and for the purpose, he has placed reliance on Rule 3(3). So far as case of Chandrakant Khaire is concerned, the meeting was for election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation held on 6-5-1988 at 2.00 p.m. at the Alankar hall. Eventually, we are informed that, it was the first meeting since constitution of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation for larger urban area, replacing erstwhile Aurangabad Municipal Council. The meeting was presided over by the Municipal Commissioner. The issue involved was, whether the first meeting of the Corporation called for that day at 2.45 p.m. by the Municipal Commissioner, was adjourned for the day, or adjourned sine die and, therefore, had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him and thus necessitated giving of seven days notice as required by Clause 1(h) of Chapter II of the Rules framed under Section 453 of the Act. As is evident from the facts described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgment, there was serious law and order situation. The Collector and Superintendent of Police were required to rush to the venue of the meeting. Not only councillors, but outsiders were freely moving through the meeting. The Municipal Commissioner was surrounded by about 2025 persons. The Municipal Commissioner surrounded by those persons, was in very much agitated state of mind and informed the Collector, who arrived at venue, that he could not hold meeting in an unruly and disorderly situation then prevailing. He complained that despite his repeated requests to the councillors, it had no effect and the councillors kept on shouting raising slogans and fighting amongst themselves. This made it impossible for him to transact the business. He complained that despite his repeated requests to the councillors, it had no effect and the councillors kept on shouting raising slogans and fighting amongst themselves. This made it impossible for him to transact the business. The meeting was scheduled to be held at 2.00 p.m. and the Commissioner had announced that polling for office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and members of the Standing Committee would commence from 2.30 p.m. onwards. At 2.30 p.m. some councillors belonging to Shiv Sena party, sat on ballot boxes and some others surrounded the Commissioner, demanding adjournment of the meeting to some other date. Councillors belonging to Congress-I party started shouting at him that meeting be held later on that day, being apprehensive that if the meeting was to be adjourned, they might lose the contest. Thereafter, Commissioner announced that the meeting would continue and the elections would be held at 4.30 p.m. The Petitioner Chandrakant Khaire had also filed written protest at 4.30 p.m. that the meeting had been adjourned by the Municipal Commissioner. It was in these facts and circumstances that the issue as referred above had arisen. Considering relevant rules framed under Section 453, i.e. Rules 1(b), (h), (m) and 2(3), as contained in Chapter II of Schedule D, the Supreme Court observed thus in paragraph 16. "16. A properly convened meeting cannot be postponed. The proper course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally intended, and then and there adjourn it to a more suitable date. If this course be not adopted, members will be entitled to ignore the notice of postponement, and, if sufficient to form a quorum, hold the meeting as originally convened and validly transact the business thereat. Even if the relevant rules do not give the chairman power to adjourn the meeting he may do so in the event of disorder. Such an adjournment must be for no longer than the chairman considers necessary and the chairman must, so far as possible, communicate his decision to those present." The paragraph is relied upon for the purpose of claiming that the meeting can be adjourned, Deep, after declaration of his election as a Mayor, had adjourned the meeting and so far as the issue of election of Deputy Mayor is concerned, in the light of chaos and bedlam that had prevailed. The Supreme Court, ultimately concluded thus in paragraph 18. "18. The Supreme Court, ultimately concluded thus in paragraph 18. "18. On an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in upholding the finding that the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation fixed by the Municipal Commissioner for May 6, 1988 was not 'adjourned for the day' or 'adjourned sine die' but had only been put off to a later hour i.e. the proceedings had only been suspended, to recommence when peace and order were restored." As against this, Advocate Shri. Ron placed reliance upon sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, which mandates that the special meeting so called, shall not be cancelled or adjourned. The word 'cancelled' would obviously apply 'before commencement of the meeting' and the word 'adjourned' would apply to a meeting, which had already 'commenced' its proceedings. Taking into consideration the conflict between Rules 2005, which are rules for special meeting, and the rules as contained in Chapter II of Schedule D to BPMC Act, which are general rules applicable for usual proceedings of the Corporation, it must be said that the special provision shall prevail over general provision. After taking into consideration the distinction between the reported judgment and the facts of our case, we do not think that the ratio relied upon helps to arrive at a conclusion that there is a power to adjourn the meeting for election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The judgment was rendered when Rules of 2005 were not in the field and when the court was dealing with clauses (b), (h), (m) of Rule 1 and Rule 2(3) from Chapter II of Schedule D, which now are not available, in view of rules specially framed for special meeting. Eventually, even there is one more distinction. As can be seen from the contents in paragraph 9 of that judgment, and more particularly regarding affidavit of the Commissioner, the Commissioner had not left the venue and he had remained in the chair of the Presiding Authority hoping for peace to be restored. That is not the case in the matter before us. Admittedly, as recorded by Sandeep in his application to the Commissioner, the presiding officer declared Deep as newly elected Mayor and then left the meeting. That is not the case in the matter before us. Admittedly, as recorded by Sandeep in his application to the Commissioner, the presiding officer declared Deep as newly elected Mayor and then left the meeting. It is the claim of Deep, who was to be new presiding officer for the purpose of further part of the meeting i.e. election of Deputy Mayor, that he left venue by declaring adjournment of the meeting of Deputy Mayor by three days. Glaring distinction between the two matters is that, in the reported judgment only one Mayor and Deputy Mayor were elected, whereas in our case, even if we presume the entire day to be a meeting properly convened, two Mayors are elected with yawning gap of 4-1/2 hours and by two different presiding officers. 13. Shri. Shah, learned Senior Counsel, had taken us to the case of Jayantibhai Manubhai Patel Vs. Arun Subodhbhai Mehta, (1989)2 SCC 484 . This was a case of cancellation of meeting. As can be seen from the facts narrated in paragraph 4, the meeting to elect Mayor and Deputy Mayor was convened on 1-6-1988 at 5.00 p.m. On 31-5-1988, appellant No.1 gave instructions, by letter to the Deputy Secretary of the Corporation to postpone the meeting of the Corporation. Of course, the issue involved was again, where the meeting convened for election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, could be cancelled, and the conclusion can be gathered from terminal part of paragraph 15, which we quote. "15. ............................ .. However, it does not appear to us that, on a parity of reasoning, it must be held that the Mayor had the implied power to cancel a meeting or postpone a meeting which was duly convened before the said meeting commenced and to convene the same on a subsequent occasion. It is needless to say that this power must be exercised by the Mayor bona fide and not for a collateral purpose. The power must again be exercised for a proper purpose. If the Mayor is unable to show this, then the postponement of the meeting must be held to be bad. It is needless to say that this power must be exercised by the Mayor bona fide and not for a collateral purpose. The power must again be exercised for a proper purpose. If the Mayor is unable to show this, then the postponement of the meeting must be held to be bad. But it is not possible to say that the Mayor had no power to cancel a meeting duly convened and to direct that the same should be held on a later day provided that the power was exercised bonafide and for a justified purpose." We must say that, observations in this case also, need not be applicable mutatis-mutandis for the same reasons for which we have said that ratio in the case of Chandrakant Khaire does not apply, in view of existence of new rules, as also factual distinction between the reported case and the matter at hands. In the matter of Jayantibhai, the Supreme Court further referred to Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, in addition to the rules relied upon in Chandrakant Khaire's case. 14. If we are to accept that the Mayor had powers to adjourn the meeting, Advocate Shri. M. S. Deshmukh would be justified in saying that Shri. Deep adjourned the meeting in his capacity as a Mayor. We are not going to disputed questions of fact. However, it requires no prophet to believe that after election of Shri. Deep, there ought to have been some chaos, although that may be because of the manner in which Deep was elected. We have discussed this at length and the election of Deep by discarding nominations of other for untenable reason, would not have allowed the majority, which was on the other side, to keep quiet. If at all amongst two versions, one is to be elected, version of Deep that there occurred chaos and bedlam in the house, will have to be preferred as acceptable. If at all amongst two versions, one is to be elected, version of Deep that there occurred chaos and bedlam in the house, will have to be preferred as acceptable. If at all we are to accept the submission of learned Advocate Shri. Hon and which appears to us to be more convincing, in view of rule 3(3), the meeting cannot be cancelled, nor can it be adjourned, yet, the fact remains that the meeting had come to an end, by Mayor departing with a declaration of election of Deep Chavan and also departure of Deep Chavan, by saying that election of Deputy Mayor is adjourned by three days. Rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, the meeting had come to an end. The issue of adjournment, which was vociferously contested by the two sides, we are of the considered view, is insignificant, in the light of version of Sandeep himself, as to what had happened in the meeting at 11.00 a.m., as recorded in the application to the Commissioner (page 255). Once Deep was declared elected by the ex-Mayor, 11.00 a.m. being the meeting properly convened according to the rules, and which had commenced, whatever the merits of the declaration, whether it was right or wrong, legal or illegal, or it was reached by irregular, improper or illegal means, the only course available to Sandeep, was to challenge the said election/declaration, either by declaratory suit/Writ Petition/or representation to the State to cancel the said decision/ resolution in exercise of its powers under Section 451. No provision is relied upon to demonstrate before us that the remaining members, may be because of their majority, or even by being unanimous, can overrule the declaration made by the presiding officer. To sum up the situation, we may state that the meeting during which Sandeep claims to have been elected as a Mayor and claims to have continued to elect Deepak Sul as Deputy Mayor, suffers from the defects as under. (i) 4.00 p.m. was not the meeting properly convened for election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor. It also cannot be said to be postponed meeting because of yawning time gap of 4-1/2 hours between 11.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and due to change of presiding officer. (i) 4.00 p.m. was not the meeting properly convened for election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor. It also cannot be said to be postponed meeting because of yawning time gap of 4-1/2 hours between 11.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and due to change of presiding officer. (ii) It was presided over by Shri. Namdeo Pawar, the presiding officer, not in strict compliance of rule 6(2), although as argued by Advocate Shri. Hon, this defect, by virtue of section 34, does not seem to vitiate the proceedings. (iii) There is room to infer that not only 'walk-out' group, but even Sandeep's group might have left the venue, at least for the purpose of tendering application to the Commissioner. The time gap of 4-1/2 hours supports such inference. (iv) Last, but not the least, the remaining Councillors took a role of adjudicator to hold that what happened in the morning was not the special meeting at all, the election, if any, was not proper and they proceeded to hold second election meeting. 15. In the democracy established in the light of Constitution, which we have enacted, adopted and given to ourselves, various judicial fora are provided, constitutional, as well as statutory, in order to enable the persons wronged, to seek remedy. Individual is not given a liberty to decide himself remedy against the wrong suffered. Such conduct, on the part of citizens and any individual, reduces fabric of democracy to a state of rags. Only course open for Sandeep after morning events; howsoever bitter for him, howsoever striking to his mind, as a preplanned action, or howsoever strong his belief, that it was illegal proceedings; was to approach the court of law, as would have been advised in accordance with law. It was not open for him to try and nullify one illegality by another and thereby compel Deep to reach the court of law first and follow himself soon thereafter. None of the lawyers have cited before us any case, wherein two individuals claimed to have been elected to same seat on the same day, and hence, we justifiably believe that this is a unique case of its own and first of its kind in the history of democracy. (We are informed that this is second, first having taken place at Dhule Municipal Corporation on a day earlier i.e. 29-6-2006, which matter is being argued before Auxiliary bench at Aurangabad). (We are informed that this is second, first having taken place at Dhule Municipal Corporation on a day earlier i.e. 29-6-2006, which matter is being argued before Auxiliary bench at Aurangabad). This confirms our belief that, there are no incidents, wherein one wrong was remedied by another wrong and every time persons felt wronged have approached the Court of law for the remedy in accordance with the law. On the basis of his own representation, San deep cannot deny that Shri. Fulsaunder had declared Deep elected as Mayor and thereafter, there could not have been repeat/postponed/adjourned meeting for election of Mayor, even if there be power so to cancel/ adjourn etc. Taking the four defects enlisted hereinabove together, the meeting at 4.00 p.m. cannot be said to have any sanction of law, as properly convened special meeting for election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor. Consequently, the said meeting, its proceedings and result, as also subsequent notifications/orders, if any, are also required to be quashed and set aside. 16. Apprehending a possibility that the decision of the court favourable to both the petitioners in their respective petitions may bring the Corporation back to square, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 has placed reliance upon observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh, (2004)6 SCC 626 , and more particularly observations in paragraph 54, as also paragraphs 60 and 61. We quote. "54. It is now well settled that object of the Act must be given effect to. The object of the Act being to elect an Adhyaksha, construction of the Rules should be made in such a manner which would not negate the same. An interpretation of the Rules which would lead to election of one of the candidates should be adhered to and for that purpose, if necessary, the doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse to." "60. A statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. It has to be meaningful. a construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would fulfil the object and purport of the legislative intent." "61. The question as to when there can be a tie between two candidates leading to a deadlock must be judged on the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. It has to be meaningful. a construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would fulfil the object and purport of the legislative intent." "61. The question as to when there can be a tie between two candidates leading to a deadlock must be judged on the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. If by a process of interpretation such consequences can be avoided, the same should be preferred to application of any other principle of interpretation of statutes." On reference to paragraph 3 of the reported judgment, background facts can be gathered. It was an election held for the post of Adhyakasha, Zilla Panchayat, Champawat in the State of Uttaranchal. The appellant, the first respondent and one Bhagirath Bhatt contested therefor. They got 6, 5 and 1 preference votes respectively. Upon elimination of Bhagirath, appellant and the first respondent obtained six votes each, probably, single preference vote of eliminated Bhagirath going to first respondent, who had got one vote less in the first round. Election was held on the basis of proportionate representation. By reason of an order dated 24-5-2003, the returning officer declared the said office to be vacant on the purported ground that both the candidates received equal votes, as also on the ground that none of them secured quota, which was said to be mandatory in nature. The observations of the Supreme Court, relied upon by learned Senior Counsel, inviting us for purposive interpretation, were in the light of that fact-situation. It may be said that it was due to rules regarding counting that had reached the election to a deadlock and the results could not be declared. It was in those facts and circumstances that the Supreme Court expressed that purposive interpretation should be applied so that the purpose of the Act can be served and the election should be declared. The appellant, who had received highest number of first preference votes, it was held, should have been elected. The basic difference between that election in the matter of Lalit Mohan and our election is that, in the reported judgment, it was only a question as to how to interpret the statutory provisions. We are required to decide how to read the conduct of parties. The basic difference between that election in the matter of Lalit Mohan and our election is that, in the reported judgment, it was only a question as to how to interpret the statutory provisions. We are required to decide how to read the conduct of parties. As we have discussed hereinabove, we are required to deal with the situation which is full of irregularities and illegalities and contingencies not contemplated by law, because of spontaneous actions and reactions of the characters on the scene. The courts cannot be used to obtain a seal of authority on the election of a candidate, if the same is vitiated by illegality. If we uphold second part as legally valid election, because now first one is held by us to be illegal, that would create precedent of defeated candidates to be illegal, treating the same as nullity and then there itself, proceeding further with election process till they get declaration of their election. The factual details available in the matter before us, can be summarised in one sentence, as above. Such an approach would perpetuate very unhealthy trend in the process of democratic elections and more particularly the elections which are with a limited number of voters and polling is by raising of hands. Aspirants to democratic position of power, must honour democratic process. Those defeated or anticipating the defeat, must face the situation gracefully like King Porus and those aspiring to climb the ladder of power-position, must do so, by a route made available by law and no other means. Countermanding of election by now, is not a rarity and this one is a case which needs adoption of such a course. Having found that declarations of both the Petitioners as elected Mayors are vitiated by illegality, there is no option for them except going through the exercise again and this time, without indulging in any, other or new, irregularity or illegality. This may appear to be a situation like child being sent home for not having done his homework, but this is just because, "as you sow, so you reap". 17. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. Declaration of election of Deep is quashed and set aside. Declaration of election as Mayor of Sandeep and subsequent order issued by the Commissioner declaring the same, are also quashed and set aside. 17. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. Declaration of election of Deep is quashed and set aside. Declaration of election as Mayor of Sandeep and subsequent order issued by the Commissioner declaring the same, are also quashed and set aside. The proceedings of both the meeting on the proceeding book, therefore, will have to be treated as non-est. Since the second meeting itself is held to be no meeting in the eye of law, Deepak Sul also suffers adverse effect of the same and, therefore, his election as Deputy Mayor also stands quashed and set aside. Section 19(3) restores Shri. Fulsaunder and Dnyaneshwar Khandre, as Mayor and Deputy Mayor, till legally elected Mayor and Deputy Mayor assume offices. We direct that Secretary-Respondent No.4, in consultation with Respondent No.5, shall convene a meeting for elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayo, in accordance with Rules, 2005. The date of meeting shall be not before 23-8-2006 and in any case, meeting should be conducted before 31-8-2006 and not later than 31-8-2006. We clarify that all the lawyers involved in both the Writ Petitions have agreed that nominations of the two petitioners, namely, Deep s/o Narayan Chavan and Sandeep s/o. Bhanudas Kotkar, are valid and, therefore, Respondent No.5 as presiding officer of the meeting for election of Mayor, shall begin the proceedings with scrutiny of the nominations only of remaining four candidates, upon which we have not recorded any finding, in view of their absence on record. It is needless to say that polling should follow after fifteen minutes time gap for withdrawal, as per Rules. Writ Petitions are disposed of by making Rules absolute, accordingly. At this stage, Shri. Ron, learned Advocate, prays for stay to the execution and implementation of our judgment. We have already kept a time gap up to 23-8-2006 before fresh elections can be held, for the purpose of both the petitioners to prefer appeal, if they so desire and hence, we direct that status-quo as on today, may be continued till 22-8-2006 evening. Petitions allowed.