JUDGMENT P. V. HARDAS, J.:- Since the facts in both the petitions are identical, these petitions are decided by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made able forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these ions are, therefore, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners praying For issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ directing respondents I and 3 to 6 to convene an adjourned meeting held on 29-6-2006 to any other appropriate date for transacting the business of adjourned meeting and for letting further stages of election to the office of Mayor. Alternatively it is d that the State Election Commission be directed to make appropriate Judgment to convene the adjourned meeting dated 29-6-2006 for the purpose of holding the elections to the office of Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation. also prayed that by a writ of prohibition or by an appropriate writ, respondents No.7 and 8 be restrained from acting as Mayor and Deputy Mayor. amendment the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 14-7issued by respondents No.5 and 9 for convening the meeting on 28-7-2006 transacting the business as per the directions of respondent No.7. 3. In Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2006 the petitioners have prayed for similar and have additionally prayed for holding of the election to the post of Deputy Mayor. This Court by an ad interim order dated 18th July, 2006 granted to the meeting of Dhule Municipal Corporation which was scheduled to be on 20th July, 2006 at 11 A.M. This ad interim order was to operate till 2nd August, 2006. Thereafter the petition was heard for final disposal with the consent of Counsel and, therefore, the interim order came to be continued. 4. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006, therefore, questions the election post of Mayor of Dhule Municipal Corporation and Writ Petition No. 2006 questions the election to the post of Deputy Mayor of Dhule M Corporation. 5. The brief facts as are necessary for the decision of these petitions stated thus :- The petitioners in both the petitions are elected Councilors of respondent No.5 Corporation. The post of Mayor in the respondent No.5 Corporation reserved for O.B.C. category. 5. The brief facts as are necessary for the decision of these petitions stated thus :- The petitioners in both the petitions are elected Councilors of respondent No.5 Corporation. The post of Mayor in the respondent No.5 Corporation reserved for O.B.C. category. Respondent No.3 was the Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation while respondent No.4 is the Deputy Mayor of respondent No. 5 Corporation whose term of office came to an end on 30 Respondents No.7 and 8 claim to have been elected to the post of Ma Deputy Mayor respectively of the respondent No.5 Corporation. 6. Respondent No.5 Dhule Municipal Corporation has been establish 30-6-2003 and thereafter the general elections to the respondent Corporation were held on 13-12-2003 in which the present petitioners respondents No.7 and 8 along with others came to be elected as Co from different wards. The total strength of the Corporation consists of 67 members while 5 members are co-opted members and thus the total strength the Corporation is 72 members. According to the petitioners, 25 member, to Shiv-Sena, 6 members belong to B.J.P., 3 belong to Vikas Manch, 2 to N.C.P., 8 belong to Congress (I) and 4 are independent. The 5 Council. I have been co-opted have no right to vote in the election to the post of M Deputy Mayor. In the previous elections which were held in the year post of Mayor was reserved for general category and the election were 30-12-2003. In that election respondent No.3 came to be elected as a . it is alleged that he belonged to the Shiv Sena party. In the same respondent No.4 came to be elected as Deputy Mayor, who it is alleged to the Vikas Manch which is alleged to be an ally of the Shiv Sena parties. The term of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was of 2-1/2 years and, the term of office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor came to an end on 30-6- 2006. 7. The petitioners have alleged that in the meantime respondent Nos. 2 state Election Commission had issued directions which were published in the Government Gazette dated 7-3-2006 declaring that the respondent Nos. 2 state Election Commission had the power and jurisdiction to hold the election office of Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. 7. The petitioners have alleged that in the meantime respondent Nos. 2 state Election Commission had issued directions which were published in the Government Gazette dated 7-3-2006 declaring that the respondent Nos. 2 state Election Commission had the power and jurisdiction to hold the election office of Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. The respondent No.2 State Commission by communication dated 9-3-2006 also directed the Secretaries all the Corporations that the elections would be conducted and respondent No. 2 State Election Commission. Meanwhile the Maharashtra by draw of lots declared that the office of Mayor of respondent. 5 was reserved for O.B.C. category. The petitioners have very candidate that the question whether the State Election Commission had the jurisdiction bound to hold elections in respect of the office of Mayor and Deputy, subjoined before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4664 of by some of the Councilors. Be that as it may, the respondent No.6 issue dated 20-6-2006 in respect of a meeting scheduled to be held on 29-6- A.M. for the purpose of election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor notice also declared that the meeting would be presided over by respondent No. 3 who would be relinquishing the office of Mayor on 30-6-2006. Along with copy of the notice convening the special meeting on 29-6-2006, respondent. 6 Secretary of respondent No.5 had also sent the election programme. The election programme which was declared is as follows :_ Date, time and place for obtaining From 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006 the blank nomination forms (excluding holidays), from 11.00 A.M. till 2.00 P.M. in office of Urban Secretary, Dhule Corporation From 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006 (excluding holidays), from 11.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M., in office of Urban Secretary, Dhule Corporation. On the day of meeting. Immediately after starting the meeting. After scrutiny is over, 15 minutes time will be given. After expiry of period of taking back nomination if there are more than one person are contesting Presiding Officer will declare the same. Thus, as per the election programme the candidates desirous of contesting election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor could obtain the nation forms from 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006. The nominations could be submitted by the candidates from 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006. Thus, as per the election programme the candidates desirous of contesting election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor could obtain the nation forms from 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006. The nominations could be submitted by the candidates from 21-6-2006 till 26-6-2006. On the same day the nation papers could be scrutinized and after giving an opportunity to the candidates for withdrawal of their nomination, elections would be held if there re more than one nomination in respect of the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. According to the petitioners since both belonged to O.B.C. category they re entitled and eligible to contest the election to the office of Mayor and, before, the petitioners had submitted their nominations on 26-6-2006. according to the petitioners, in all 9 nominations had been submitted by 5 candidates for the office of the Mayor while 11 nominations had been filed in respect of the election to the office of the Deputy Mayor. The meeting which was scheduled to be held on 29-6-2006 at 11 a.m. commenced as per the schedule. according to the petitioners, in all 67 Councilors were present including the 5 opted Councilors. However, since the co-opted Councilors did not have a ht of vote, only 62 elected Councilors had a right of vote and were present at, 11 am. The petitioners claim that they too were present in the said meeting which commended at around 11.00 a.m. Before the meeting could address itself the question of election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor certain objections, clarifications and point of order were raised by some of the members. In the ire process, according to the petitioners, chaos and pandemonium prevailed therefore, the Presiding Officer i.e. respondent No. 3 Mayor had no other native but to adjourn the meeting. The petitioners have annexed to the petition a copy of the minutes of the meeting which bear the signature of respondent No.3 who then was presiding Over the meeting. It is the categorical submission of the petitioners that till the meeting was adjourned the elections to the office of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were not held as there was chaos and confusion." The petitioners ascribe the chaos, confusion pandemonium to respondents No.7 and 8 who according to the petition no hope of being successfully elected in the meeting because the petition majority in their favour. The petitioners further allege that the situation was to the adjournment of the meeting was created deliberately by the political to which respondent Nos. 7 and 8 belonged. It is categorically stated petitioners that there was no scrutiny of nomination nor was an opposite afforded to the contesting candidates of withdrawal of their nomination consequently no elections had been held. The petitioners, therefore, state meeting was adjourned without transacting the business for which the had been convened. The petitioners further state that due to adjournment meeting it was informed that the agenda of the adjourned meeting w issued later and the Councilors would be accordingly informed. The petitioners categorically state that "therefore, the petitioners and all other Councilors left the said premises, even the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor have also said premises. (emphasis supplied). The petitioners contend that on the i.e. on 30-6-2006 the petitioners read in the newspaper that respondents and 8 have been declared as elected to the office of Mayor and Deputy The petitioners further state that they had subsequently learnt that Councilors belonging to rival political parties have prepared the d showing the election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The co of the petitioners, therefore, is that since the meeting was adjourned. transacting any business, respondents No.7 and 8 could not have been belonged. The office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. There are Government petition in respect of the meeting which had been convened subsequence election of respondents No.7 and 8, which meeting came to be stayed b interim order of this Court. The pleadings in respect of that are not get the decision of the controversy which is raised in these two petitions any we are called upon to decide. 8. The petitioners along with the petition have annexed the minute meeting which was held on 29-6-2006. The minutes of the meeting are to the petition as Exh.H. The minutes disclose the various objections, order, contentions which were raised by the members and the ultimate which was taken by the Presiding Officer. The decision of the Presiding is that because of chaos in the meeting it was not possible to conduct the for the election and, therefore, the meeting is adjourned. 9. The decision of the Presiding is that because of chaos in the meeting it was not possible to conduct the for the election and, therefore, the meeting is adjourned. 9. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have fill affidavit in reply and we shall briefly advert to the contentions which ha raised by the respondents in their replies. Respondent No.1 State of Ma in its reply has stated that the Government has the power to conduct the to the office of Mayor in view of section 19 of the Bombay Provincial M Corporations Act, 1949 and accordingly the Government had notified t for the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor as "Bombay Pr Corporations (Election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rule vide Government Notification dated 5-2-2005. It is further stated in the that relying upon the opinion expressed by the Advocate Gene the Government had directed all Municipal Commissioners, Collectors, Chief officers of Municipal Councils that the directions issued by the State Election Commission were contrary to the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and Municipal Commissioners were legally bound to conduct the elections. It is further stated that as per the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Election Rules, 2005, a special meeting called for election of Mayor shall not be cancelled or adjourned. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed. 10. Respondent No.3, who was then the outgoing Mayor when the meeting dated 29-6-2006 was convened, in his reply states that in the meeting of respondent had been held on 30-12-2003 he was elected as Mayor. He further states that respondent No.4 had been elected as the Deputy Mayor. He further states that respondent No. 6 - Secretary of respondent No. 5 Corporation had issued ice on 21-6-2006 in respect of convening a special general body meeting of respondent No. 5 Corporation on 29-6-2006 at 11.00 a.m. The receipt of the election programme along with the said notice is also admitted. It is further stated that as per the election programme in all 9 nomination forms had been received the office of Mayor and 11 nomination forms had been received for the office Deputy Mayor. Certain allegations are attributed to respondent No.7 who had theatened to disrupt the meeting in the event the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor not elected from amongst the Councilors belonging to his political party. Certain allegations are attributed to respondent No.7 who had theatened to disrupt the meeting in the event the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor not elected from amongst the Councilors belonging to his political party. The is further stated that apprehending contains an averment that certain independent Councilors had been ed by respondent No.3 to vote in favour of the candidate for the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor belonging to his political party. It is further stated that prehending some foul play in the said meeting, one Councilor, namely Shri ahesh Mistri had filed Writ Petition No. 4664 of 2006 on 27-6-2006 praying rein that the Election Commission should be directed to hold the election of mayor and Deputy Mayor. In the said writ petition respondent No. 7 had interved and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27-6-2006 had sued Rule making it returnable in eight weeks and making the elections subject the decision of the petition. The Division Bench had declined to grant any interim relief. It is also alleged that respondent No.7 had filed Regular Civil Suit o. 144 of 2006 attempting to seek an injunction restraining respondent No.3 on presiding over the meeting. According to respondent No.3, the respondent o. 7 had attempted to create hurdles in the smooth conduct of the meeting scheduled to be held on 29-6-2006. In respect of the meeting held on 29-6-2006, respondent No.3 states that the meeting commenced at about 11.00 a.m. and the Corporate belonging to different parties started raising objections. It is stated at thereafter respondent No.7 and his supporters started shouting slogans and treated a chaotic situation. To counter the slogans raised by respondent No.7, and his supporters Councilors from the political party of respondent No.3 also raised slogans and thus there was slogan shouting from amongst the political parties. It is stated at because of this "atmosphere was vicious and it has become difficult to conduct the meeting." The atmosphere in the hall had become unruly and respondent No.8 waited for about 15 to 25 minutes and finding that it became difficult to conduct the meeting exercised his power and adjourned the meeting to a subsequent date. It is stated at because of this "atmosphere was vicious and it has become difficult to conduct the meeting." The atmosphere in the hall had become unruly and respondent No.8 waited for about 15 to 25 minutes and finding that it became difficult to conduct the meeting exercised his power and adjourned the meeting to a subsequent date. It is thus stated that about around 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. he adjourned the meeting by making an announcement that the meeting could not be conducted and the House would be informed subsequently and request Corporators to leave the House. Respondent No. 3 states that he along left the hall and Deputy Mayor left the House. It is further stated that all the Corporators the hall and thereafter respondent No.6 Secretary had scribed the proceeding the meeting. It is reiterated that since the situation had become tense, respondent No.3 had no other alternative but to adjourn the meeting. 11. Respondent No.4 the then outgoing Deputy Mayor in his affricative reply has also stated that on the day of the meeting a chaotic situation pre on account of the raising of slogans by the rival political parties and, therefore was decided to adjourn the meeting in order to avoid further untoward inc Respondent No.3 accordingly declared that the meeting had been adjourn also stated that after adjourning the meeting respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 left the premises as also the other Corporators. 12. Respondent No.5 through the affidavit of one Bhagwan Gite, in Assistant Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule, states in of the aforesaid meeting as follows :- The meeting commenced at 11.00 a.m. and was presided over by respondent No.3. It is stated that the original record is not available wise respondent No.5 Corporation and the respondent No.5 Corporation, the does not have the original of the minutes of the meeting annexed b petitioners at Exh.H. It is further stated that the respondent No.3 the out Mayor and respondent No.6 the Secretary of respondent No.5 Corporation carried with them the relevant documents along with them by "trying to ad the meeting. They went away from the meeting hall without conduction voting to the post of Mayor and Deputy Major (sic Mayor)". They went away from the meeting hall without conduction voting to the post of Mayor and Deputy Major (sic Mayor)". It is further stated that the Commissioner had contacted the Government authorities for guidance and further suitable action and informed by the State Government on telephone that the Commissioner should proceed in accordance with the Rules and conduct the election of the Mayo Deputy Mayor. It is further stated that in this context the Deputy Secretary Government of Maharashtra had also sent a fax message that the meeting electing Mayor and Deputy Mayor cannot be cancelled or adjourned as p provisions of the Rules and further directed the Commissioner to conduct elections to the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in accordance with the Rules. It is stated at paragraph 8 of the reply that since the Mayor and De Mayor had not conducted the proceedings of the meeting to elect Mayor, Deputy Mayor and on the contrary had walked out of the meeting hall. majority of the Councilors were present in the meeting hall and therefore had requested for further proceedings with the meeting as the said me cannot be cancelled and/or adjourned. I say that there were 37 el Councilors 2 nominated Councilors present in the meeting hall a accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(3) they elected the one of the respondent most Councilors, namely, Chandrakant Kashinath Kele as Presiding Office preside over the meeting. I say that accordingly, the meeting proceeded fu and transacted the entire business of electing the Mayor and Deputy Ma (emphasis supplied). It is stated that in the said meeting respondents No.7 and 8 came to be elected as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively. It is stated that respondent No.7 was elected as the Mayor he presided over and conducted lections to the post of Deputy Mayor and thereafter respondent No.8 came elected as the Deputy Mayor. The respondent has annexed along with his y at Exh.R-5 copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 29-6-2006. It is also d that since the respondent No.6 Secretary had committed dereliction of his in not taking proper care of the record a criminal complaint had been filed the Dhule City Police Station on 29-6-2006. 13. In Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2006 on behalf of respondent No.5 the davit has been sworn by the Commissioner reiterating exactly what is stated his behalf. 13. In Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2006 on behalf of respondent No.5 the davit has been sworn by the Commissioner reiterating exactly what is stated his behalf. In fact, the stand of the respondents is identically reflected in Writ petition No. 4883 of 2006. We, therefore, do not allude to the replies and the contentions of the respondents in their replies filed in Writ Petition No. 4883 of 6 as the averments and the statement of fact made in both the petitions being identical. 14. Respondent No.6 Secretary has filed his affidavit in reply and in the Affidavit in reply it is stated that the meeting on 29-6-2006 commenced at around 11.00 a.m. It is stated that a chaotic situation prevailed on account of the slogans raised by rival political groups and as a result of which respondent No.3 the going Mayor adjourned the meeting. It is stated that no business had been transacted in the said meeting and almost all the Corporators left the premises so the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor also left the premises. Respondent No.6 sates that he also went to his office. 15. Respondent No. 7 in his reply while denying all adverse allegations against him, states that the petition is structured and is based on disputed questions of fact. It is also stated that the petitioners are in fact proxy petitioners ,and the real person behind the filing of the petition is respondent No.3. It is stated that respondent No.3 in order to ensure his continuance in the office had made efforts earlier but they proved futile, and therefore, has instigated the filing of the present petition, and therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to any equitable relief. It is stated that the respondent No. 7 has been elected as the Mayor by majority of votes and has already taken charge of the post of Mayor. It is further attempted to be shown that in any event respondent NO.7 would have been elected as the Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation because respondent No.7 had admittedly the majority over his rivals. In respect of the meeting which was held on 29-6-2006, it is stated that respondent No.3 in an arbitrary, high handed and unjust act left the meeting hall and did not even inform about the further course of action to be adopted. In respect of the meeting which was held on 29-6-2006, it is stated that respondent No.3 in an arbitrary, high handed and unjust act left the meeting hall and did not even inform about the further course of action to be adopted. Respondent No.3 had also not informed whether he had cancelled or adjourned the meeting nor was the next date of the meeting informed to the members. Respondent No.3 had simply abandoned the meeting. It is further stated that if respondent No.3 had left the meeting hall, few Corporators from "Saffron alliance" continued to stay in the meeting hall while some of them went out of the meeting hall. It is then further stated that the Commissioner obtained the necessary instructions and one Chandrakant Kele was elected as the Presiding Officer and in the said meeting, respondent No. 7 secured 35 votes and was declared elected as the Mayor. Respondent No. 7 thereafter presided over the meeting and respondent No.8 came to be elected as the Deputy Mayor. It is denied that there was either any chaos, confusion. also stated that a copy of the minutes at Exh.H annexed by the petitioner is n authentic record available with the Corporation and is a document which created to provide foundation for the petitioners to file the present petition. stated that about 37 Corporators have sworn individual affidavits about events as they occurred in the meeting dated 29-6-2006. Respondent therefore urged for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.8 the newly el Deputy Mayor in his affidavit in reply states that a communication had addressed dated 29-6-2006 at 10.50 a.m. in which the BJ.P. (B) group consists of three Corporators had informed the Collector, Dhule that BJ.P. (B) extended its Support to N.C.P. and Congress (I) and its allies for the election scheduled at 11.00 a.m. on 29-6-2006. In the said communication apprehension was expressed that respondent No. 3 would abuse or misus powers as he has lost the support of the majority. It is further stated that on 2006 at about 10.45 a.m. about 33 Corporators had submitted a representation the Collector stating therein that the 33 signatories to the representation formed a group for the purpose of election of Deputy Mayor and. apprehended that respondent No.3 would resort to unfair practices in the el of Deputy Mayor. It is further stated that on 2006 at about 10.45 a.m. about 33 Corporators had submitted a representation the Collector stating therein that the 33 signatories to the representation formed a group for the purpose of election of Deputy Mayor and. apprehended that respondent No.3 would resort to unfair practices in the el of Deputy Mayor. In the reply it is attempted to make out that respondent had a clearedge in the majority in respect of his rivals by showing the list supporters. In respect of the meeting at paragraph 14 of the affidavit in reply stated that the Corporators belonging to the Congress group were ext temperate in their behaviour and there was no disorder in the House. It is s that there was neither any commotion nor disturbance in the House and as Sena and B.J.P. (A) wanted to avoid the elections, respondent No.3 attempt adjourn the meeting and abruptly left the meeting hall. Respondent No.3 did even inform the further course of action which was to be taken. Respondent No.3 also did not inform about the next date and time about the meeting. leaving the hall respondent No.6 Secretary took the proceeding book, attend register, nomination forms, etc. which had been handed over to him by. Presiding Officer. This was an attempt who according to respondent No. stall the election at all costs. It is stated "however, all the Corporators belong to Congress group continued to stay in the meeting hall itself." It is reiterated that there was only an attempt by the Presiding Officer to adjourn meeting. It is also admitted that after the commencement of the m objections were raised by Corporators of Shiv Sena - B.J.P. about the valid the meeting as the entire approach of the Corporators of these political parties, was to adjourn the meeting. It is reiterated that there was neither any confusion bedlam in the meeting hall and thus there was no necessity to ad journey meeting on account of chaos. It is further stated that 37 elected Corporator two co-opted Corporators had never left the meeting hall. The meeting thereafter continued and concluded. 16. The petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavits of respondents and at this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to allude to the contents of the affidavit in rejoinder. It is further stated that 37 elected Corporator two co-opted Corporators had never left the meeting hall. The meeting thereafter continued and concluded. 16. The petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavits of respondents and at this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to allude to the contents of the affidavit in rejoinder. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, three questions stand posed before us (i) Whether the Rules governing the election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor contemplate adjournment of a meeting convened for that purpose; (ii) Whether the meeting had in fact been adjourned; (iii) If the meeting had been adjourned, whether the meeting which was held subsequently can be said to be a continuation of the first meeting. 17. We have heard Mr. R. N. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006 and Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2006. according to Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel, the Rules in respect of the election to office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor cannot be interpreted in a manner to indicate that no discretion is vested in the Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting. In other words, it is urged before us that the provision in the said Rule particularly sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 cannot be interpreted to hold it mandatory to indicate that the meeting could not be adjourned. It is then urged before us that disputably even according to the respondents, after respondent No.3 had left meeting hall, all the Corporators were not present. The petitioners have annexed copy of the minutes of the meeting to indicate that the meeting had been journed. Whether the chaotic situation in the meeting was of such magnitude at it necessitated an adjournment of the meeting is not a question which can be neither into by this Court as the decision to adjourn the meeting was the subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.3 - the Presiding Officer which was arrived at on an objective assessment of the situation. It is also urged before us that the affricative of respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as affidavit of respondent No. 6 Clearly indicate that the meeting had been adjourned. It is also urged before us that the affricative of respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as affidavit of respondent No. 6 Clearly indicate that the meeting had been adjourned. If the meeting had not been journed, there was no plausible reason whatsoever for respondents No.3 and 6 to leave the meeting hall. In the absence of the original record and in the absence of any material to contradict the minutes of the meeting at Exh.H, the minutes of e meeting at Exh.H would certainly have a great persuasive value on reponderance of probability to persuade this Court to come to a conclusion that the meeting had been adjourned despite a contrary stand taken by the respondents No 3 their affidavit in reply. It was then urged by Shri Dhorde, learned Counsel for e petitioners that in the event the meeting held on 29-6-2006 had been adjourned, the holding of the subsequent meeting after a gap of nearly 2 to 3 ours cannot be said to be a continuation of an earlier meeting and, therefore, the lection of respondents No.7 and 8 to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor cannot be said to have been held in a meeting which had been duly convened. It s lastly urged that assuming that the meeting had not been adjourned and respondent No. 3 had left the meeting hall, the subsequent convening of the meeting after a gap of nearly 3 to 4 hours cannot be said to be a continuation of ,the first meeting as some of the Corporators had left the hall and, therefore, in the absence of any notice to the Corporators including the petitioners who were the candidates aspiring for the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the respective petitions. It is further stated that in the absence of original nomination papers and in the absence of a valid scrutiny being conducted by the Presiding Officer, the election of respondents No.7 and 8 cannot be said to be an election which had been held in accordance with law after properly convening of the meeting for that purpose. Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf petitioners in the other petition has adopted the submission advanced by Dhorde and has submitted that the election to the office of the Deputy which is questioned by the petitioners whom he represents, deserves to aside. 18. Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf petitioners in the other petition has adopted the submission advanced by Dhorde and has submitted that the election to the office of the Deputy which is questioned by the petitioners whom he represents, deserves to aside. 18. The learned A.G.P. representing respondent No. I has submitted us that the Rules in respect of meeting which is convened for the put electing the Mayor and Deputy Mayor mandates that the said meeting can cancelled or adjourned. According to the learned A.G.P. if this is the legislative mandate, the adjournment of the said meeting by respondent No.3 is title consequently the meeting which had been held subsequently cannot be the illegal but would be a continuation of the earlier meeting. Mr. Katenshwarkar, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3 and Mr. G. learned Counsel representing respondent No.4 the outgoing Mayor and Mayor in the said meeting, have surged before us that on account of the situation which prevailed after the commencement of the meeting, respondent No. 3 had no other alternative but to adjourn the meeting. Consequence respondent No. 3 had declared that the meeting had been adjourned business had been transacted till the adjournment of the business. It is stated that the rule that the meeting cannot be adjourned has to be read directory rule and not a mandatory rule. It is further stated that after the had been adjourned, a majority of the elected Councilors had left the hall. Mr. Hon. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No5 has urged before us that a meeting convened for the purpose of election of Ma Deputy Mayor cannot be adjourned as per the Rules framed in that behalf further stated that the original record of the proceedings of the said meet not available with the Corporation and accordingly a complaint has been I with the police against the Secretary - respondent No.6. During the co argument since the replies of respondents No.3 and 6 were silent in respondent some material aspects, we had asked the learned Counsel representing respondents No.3 and 6 to take instructions from the respective clients an oral submissions to this Court. Accordingly Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Court representing respondent No.3 has stated before us that on the day of the respondent No. 6 Secretary came with the proceeding books and the Secretary wrote the draft/rough minutes of the meeting. Accordingly Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Court representing respondent No.3 has stated before us that on the day of the respondent No. 6 Secretary came with the proceeding books and the Secretary wrote the draft/rough minutes of the meeting. The record remained with the respondent No. 6 Secretary. On the next day the Secretary came with a copy and obtained the signature of respondent No.3 who had presided 0 meeting. It is admitted that the minute book had not been signed by respondent No.3 till today. Learned Counsel representing respondent No.3 had stat the Secretary had commenced writing of the rough/draft minutes. It is then that on the same day the signature of respondent No.3 had been obtained minutes. It is stated that the signature of respondent No.3 however has not obtained on the minute book. Respondent No. 3 Secretary has stated on the minute books have been deposited with the Corporation authorities . 19. Mr. P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent. has urged before us that assuming that the Rules are directory and a meeting can be adjourned but was the meeting in fact adjourned. According to Mr. Shah, a disputed question of fact, therefore, arises whether meeting in fact had been adjourned. The minutes which have been annexed by the petitioner at Exh.H are produced from very extremely dubious source. The original minute book or the proceeding book have not been tendered by respondents No.3 and 6 before the court. The minutes which are placed at Exh.H are all loose papers which bear the mature of respondent No.3. In the light of that therefore Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners do not even by preponderance of capabilities establish that the meeting had been adjourned. Mr. Shah then admits that if in reality the meeting had not been adjourned, the holding of the ting subsequently albeit after few hours would not render the said meeting as gal as the subsequent meeting can be said to be in continuation of the first ting. Mr. Shah then submitted that respondent No. 3 was instrumental in getting a petition filed in this Court in an attempt to stall an election which was scheduled to be held on 29-6-2006. Mr. Shah then submitted that respondent No. 3 was instrumental in getting a petition filed in this Court in an attempt to stall an election which was scheduled to be held on 29-6-2006. The conduct of respondent No.3 all along , been to delay the holding of the elections as far as possible in order to ensure t respondent No. 3 continues to occupy the chair of Mayor of respondent . 5 Corporation. In a last ditch effort at stalling the meeting, therefore, the respondent No.3 left the meeting hall and walked away along with the Secretary respondent No.6. Since there was no valid adjournment of the meeting, the meeting was subsequently continued in accordance with the Rules and the procedure in which respondents No.7 and 8 came to be elected as the Mayor and duputy Mayor, respectively. There is no breach of the Rules in respect of holding the election and, therefore, the election of respondents No.7 and 8 is not liable be interfered with. Mr. Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf respondent No.8 has also argued on similar lines and has urged before us that parties are at issue as to whether the meeting had been adjourned and such disputed question of fact would not normally be adjudicated in the exercise of ,ad jurisdiction by this Court. 20. The first question, therefore, which arises for consideration before us is ether the Presiding Officer, who had presided over the special meeting held on -6-2006 for the purpose of electing Mayor and Deputy Mayor had the necessary power under the relevant Rules to adjourn the meeting. A reference in s regard may usefully be made to the relevant Rules. A Notification dated -2-2005 came to be issued under the Bombay Provincial Municipal corporations Act. The notification has ostensibly been issued under section 456A the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Section 456A of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to "the Act" for the sake of brevity, reads as under ;_ "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 454 and 456 the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules consistent with the provisions of this Act generally to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act generally to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act. Such rules may provide for charging of fees for any of the purposes of this Act: Provided that, no rules in respect of any matter relating to the pr of electoral rolls and conduct of elections shall be made consultation with the State Election Commissioner. (2) All rules made under this section shall be subject to the con previous publication. Provided that, if the State Government is satisfied that circ exist which render it necessary to take immediate action, it may with the requirement of previous publication of the rules to under this section, for the purposes of Conduct of Elections, u Act. (3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as. after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature while session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprise session or in two successive sessions, and if, before the expiry session in which it is so laid or the session immediately follow Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both agree that the rule should not be made, and notify such decision Official Gazette, the rule shall from the date of publication notification have effect only in such modified form or be of no e the case may be so however that any such modification or an shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously omitted to be done under that rule." As pointed out above, the said Notification dated 11-2-2005 came to be under the provisions of the Act. The aims and objects of issuing this notice. are to be found in the notification itself and the purpose for issuance notification were for regulating the election to the office of Mayor and Mayor the elections for which were likely to be held in third week of F, 2005. The notification further recites that the Government of Maharash satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action to make Rules for the purposes aforesaid and for that purpose to with the condition of previous publication thereof. The Government, the by virtue of the enabling provision under section 456A of the Act issue notification. The title of these Rules is Bombay Provincial M Corporations (Conduct of elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Rules, 2005, which shall be hereinafter referred to in this judgment "Election Rules". The Government, the by virtue of the enabling provision under section 456A of the Act issue notification. The title of these Rules is Bombay Provincial M Corporations (Conduct of elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Rules, 2005, which shall be hereinafter referred to in this judgment "Election Rules". Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Election Rules states that purpose of holding elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Corporation a special meeting be held by the Corporation. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rules states that the Municipal Secretary in consultation outgoing Mayor and in case the Mayor is to be elected in consultation Municipal Commissioner, fix a date for holding the special meeting un rule (1). The proviso to sub-rule (2) states that the date which would should be fixed so as to enable a Councilor to submit his nomination for posts giving at least three days clear prior notice of such meeting. Sub-rule Rule 3 mandates that the special meeting so called shall not be chance adjourned. Rule 3 of the Election Rules, therefore, reads as under :_ "3. Special meeting for Election to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. - (1) For the purpose of holding elections to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation, a special meeting shall be held by the Corporation. (2) The Municipal Secretary shall, in consultation with the outgoing Mayor and in case, the Mayor is to be elected after General Elections to the Corporation, in consultation with the Municipal Commissioner, fix a date for holding the special meeting under sub-rule (1) : Provided that, the date shall be so fixed, as to enable a Councillor to submit his nomination to the said posts, at least three clear days prior to such meeting. (3) The special meeting so called, shall not be cancelled or adjourned." 21. Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ravi Kiron vs. Bar Council of U.P. Through its Secretary and others, AIR 1974 Allahabad 211. In the aforesaid judgment the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was considering the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder in relation to the election of the Bar Council of Uttar desh. In the aforesaid judgment the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was considering the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder in relation to the election of the Bar Council of Uttar desh. The learned Single Judge, therefore, observed that since there were no limitations restrictions placed on the Bar Council in exercise of its powers in fixing dates for holding election under Rules 4 and 6 either expressly or by necessary implications, a resort could legitimately be made to the provisions of petition 21 of the General Clauses Act. The learned Single Judge was of the applicable that the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act were fully applicable in construing Rules 4 and 6 of the D.P. Rules and the power of the Bar council to fix time, place and date of the election is not exhausted merely on the issue of notification of the programme and it could alter, modify or rescind its order fixing the various dates. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that if Rules were construed otherwise, preposterous results would follow. 22. Similarly reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Saleem vs. Shivkumar Shastri and others, AIR 1974 SC 12]8. The supreme Court in this judgment had observed that where a notification is issued the Election Commission fixing certain date under clause (d) of section 30 of Representation of People Act for taking poll, it had the power under section of the General Clauses Act to alter the date of poll to a future date. Reliance is o placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Chandrakant Khaire vs. Dr. antaram Kale and others, AIR ]988 SC ]665. In this case the Supreme Court d held that in the first meeting of the Corporation there was a total confusion d bedlam inside the meeting hall and, therefore, no business could be sacted and the Municipal Commissioner had merely suspended the ceedings till peace was restored and accordingly had announced on the mike t proceedings would be resumed after 45 minutes for transacting the business d, therefore, it could not be said that the first meeting was "adjourned for the y" or "adjourned sine die". The Supreme Court further held that a properly convened meeting could not be postponed and the proper course is to adopt 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 me originally convened and validly transact the business thereat. The Supreme further observed that an adjournment must be for no longer than the considers necessary and the chairman must so far as possible, communication decision to those present. 23. The judgment of the Supreme Court rendered Chandrakant (supra) fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jayantbhai M Patel and others vs. Arun Subodhbhai Mehta and others, AIR 1989 SC 128 Supreme Court relying on section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses A that the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation has the implied power to c meeting or postpone a meeting which was duly convened before the said commenced and to convene the same on a subsequent occasion. The Su Court further held that this power must be exercised by the Mayor bona fide not for a collateral purpose and the power must be exercised for a purpose. The Supreme Court further held that if the Mayor was unable to this, then the postponement of the meeting must be held to be bad but it is possible to say that the Mayor had no power to cancel the meeting duly co and to direct that the same should be held at a later day provided that the was exercised bona fide and for a justified purpose. In respect of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Chandrakant Khaires case ( the Supreme Court at paragraph 18 has observed as under :_ "The word adjournment tends to be used loosely in connection was meetings. Indeed, as a result, the word is possible in process of ac a further, derived meaning of close, conclude or finish, whether meeting or a debate is adjourned when its further proceed in postponed to some subsequent time or to enable it to reassemble at other place; to a later hour in the same day, to some future date indefinitely, i.e. sine die (without a day being named). The business the whole meeting or the debate respectively) is indeed suspend with an intention of deferring it until resumption at a later time." The learned author goes on to say that the word adjourn has been for almost five centuries in connection with meetings, with an meaning of to put off or defer proceedings to another day, and adds "This in due course gave rise to the added meaning to break off the resumption." In Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel case (supra), the Supreme Court considering the question whether the Mayor and the power to cancel the convening the meeting and in the light of facts those observations ha made. In the present case we are considering the power of the Mayor/Ch. of the meeting to adjourn the meeting on account of chaos and pandemonium the meeting hall after the meeting had been properly convened. 24. It is no doubt true that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 mandates that the meeting which is so convened cannot either be cancelled or adjourned, behalf, therefore, we have to consider whether the aforesaid sub-rule mandatory in nature. In the General Rules at Schedule "0", Rule 32 per postponement of poll/adjournment of poll for sufficient reason to be record writing. Apart from that, under section 21 of the Bombay General Clause Act, power is conferred to alter, rescind, modify. It would be too hypertechnical an roach to hold that the Presiding Officer did not have the power to adjourn the jail meeting which had been convened. Various factors, considerations and circumstances may arise which would impel an adjournment or make the adjournment necessary. All these circumstances cannot be foreseen and, before, it would be extremely hazardous to hold that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is mandatory and, therefore, the Presiding Officer/Mayor did not have the power to adjourn the meeting which had been convened for the purpose of electing the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. In fact, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing behalf of respondent No.7 has very candidly stated that while construing sub- (3) of Rule 3, the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 cannot be held to be mandatory.could be extremely preposterous to imagine that the Presiding Officer/Mayor not have the power to adjourn the meeting. However, according to Mr. In fact, Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing behalf of respondent No.7 has very candidly stated that while construing sub- (3) of Rule 3, the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 cannot be held to be mandatory.could be extremely preposterous to imagine that the Presiding Officer/Mayor not have the power to adjourn the meeting. However, according to Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7 the power of adjournments has to be judged on the bona fides and the justified purpose. 25. In the present case we are not considering the question of adjournment the meeting or the underlying purpose for which the meeting was adjourned. brunt of the attack made by Shri P. M. Shah and Shri Naphade, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondents No.7 and 8 regarding the bona fides of respondent No.3, the then outgoing Mayor in adjourning the meeting, cannot be considered. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, respondent No.3 had adjourned the meeting for an oblique purpose respondent No.3, because of lure of power wanted to retain the office of the Mayor as long as possible. Assuming that indeed the adjournment of the meeting respondent No.3 was not for a bona fide purpose, the question still remains as whether respondent No.3 had the necessary power to adjourn the meeting. 26. Therefore, according to us, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 cannot be construed t the Mayor/Presiding Officer cannot either cancel or adjourn the meeting and is completely denuded of the said power. If the rule is construed by us as enabling the Mayor/Presiding Officer to grant an adjournment, we have to hold that respondent No.3 had the necessary power to adjourn the meeting. We hasten add that the underlying purpose of the Legislative mandate as is found in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 is to ensure that the special meetings which are convened for ,the purpose of electing the Mayor or Deputy Mayor are not adjourned in casual manner and the adjournments are not granted merely for the sake of asking. The magnitude of the situation must be such as to warrant an adjournment of the meeting. The circumstances prevailing then should, therefore, impel the Mayor/Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting as transacting any business of the meeting should be rendered impossible. Therefore, the adjournment of the meeting must be for a bona fide purpose. The magnitude of the situation must be such as to warrant an adjournment of the meeting. The circumstances prevailing then should, therefore, impel the Mayor/Presiding Officer to adjourn the meeting as transacting any business of the meeting should be rendered impossible. Therefore, the adjournment of the meeting must be for a bona fide purpose. In the present case we are not examining the question whether the adjournment of the meeting by respondent 0.3 was for a bona fide purpose or \-vas on account of some oblique motive. We are not examining the question whether in fact the meeting had been adjourned by respondent No.3. 27. In this behalf strong reliance is placed by the petitioners on the minutes of the meeting which have been annexed at Exh. H to the petition. The minutes of the meeting clearly indicate that after the commencement of the meeting as scheduled, certain questions, point of orders were raised by some member thereafter the Chairman ruled that no business could be transacted on acc disturbance in the meeting and, therefore, adjourned the meeting. The was not adjourned to any fixed date and, therefore, the meeting was not adjourned sine die. The respondents have taken strong exception to these minutes meeting which are placed on record by the petitioners. According to the respondents in their affidavit in reply have clearly contended that the was in fact not adjourned but only attempted to be adjourned. According. respondents, respondent No. 3 - the outgoing Mayor and the respondent the Secretary left the meeting hall. In the absence of the original record or absence of any minutes to the contrary, according to us by preponderance probabilities, the petitioners have been successful in demonstrating before, the minutes of the meeting at Exh.H are the minutes of the meeting which held on 29-6-2006. The other factors which probabalize the adjournment meeting are :- (i) The meeting had been convened as scheduled and if respondent 3 wanted to delay the holding of the meeting for some of purpose, the respondent No. 3 could have cancelled the which had been so convened. However, respondent No.3 close precede over the meeting; (ii) A vast majority of the members had left the meeting hall a meeting had been adjourned. However, respondent No.3 close precede over the meeting; (ii) A vast majority of the members had left the meeting hall a meeting had been adjourned. (iii) The petitioners and respondents No.3, 4 and 6 in their affidavits have clearly stated that on account of chaos, bedlam, pandemonium the meeting was required to be adjourned. 28. Though the respondents have denied the existence of a chaotic situation or pandemonium in the meeting hall, the minutes of the meeting at Exh.H clarly indicate to the contrary. If the meeting had not been adjourned, we see no as to why a sizable number of members would leave the meeting hall particularly the petitioners who had themselves submitted their nominations the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, respectively. If respondent No.3 ha attempted to adjourn the meeting by leaving the meeting hall, the petition least would have remained in the meeting hall as they were the candidate obviously would be interested in the outcome of the election at least to that they were successful in the election. Therefore the fact that a sizable n of Councilors/Corporators had left the meeting hall would clearly indicate the meeting had been adjourned. The reason for adjournment of the meeting not be bona fide and may have been actuated on account of an oblique mo the adjournment may have been pre-designed looking to the fact that the political party to which respondent No.3 belongs may not have the majority or the situation in the meeting hall may not be of such a magnitude as to warrant adjournment. Assuming all these in favour of the respondents, the fact that respondent No.3 had adjourned the meeting. As pointed out by us above are not examining the bona fides of respondent No.3 in adjourning the nor are we considering if the meeting had been justifiably adjourned. The I question before us is whether the meeting had, in fact, been adjourning According to us, therefore, looking to the various circumstances enumerated by as above. We conclude that had, in fact, been adjourned. In fact, the meeting had been illegally adjourned or was adjourned for was adjourned for an purpose is not germane for the decision of these petitions and the only question which is germane for the decision of these petitions is whether the ting was adjourned. We conclude that had, in fact, been adjourned. In fact, the meeting had been illegally adjourned or was adjourned for was adjourned for an purpose is not germane for the decision of these petitions and the only question which is germane for the decision of these petitions is whether the ting was adjourned. We have already recorded a finding that according to us 9-6-2006 after the meeting had been properly convened, for some reason the ting had been adjourned. 29. The question, therefore, arises is whether the subsequent meeting had been properly convened can be said to be an extension of the first meeting. the affidavits of respondents No.3 and 4 it is apparent that the meeting was required to be adjourned after about 30 to 45 minutes of its commencement. The ting, therefore, came to be adjourned at about 11.30 or 11.45 a.m. On the is of the affidavits of the petitioners and even on the basis of the affidavits of respondents, some of the members had left. About 37 members still remained e meeting hall. The Commissioner thereafter sought instructions from the government and was informed that the meeting could not have been either celled or adjourned and, therefore, proceeded to hold a meeting thereafter, which we refer to for the sake of convenience as "the second meeting". The minutes of the second meeting has been annexed at Exh.R-5. The said second ting commenced at 1.00 p.m. Since neither the outgoing Mayor and the Deputy Mayor were available, one Chandrakant Kashinath Kele who is the senior most Councilor was requested to chair the meeting. The minutes of the meeting her state that a majority of the members had desired that the first meeting be commenced and, therefore, the second meeting was convened. The minutes further state that the original proceeding book was not available and a search was taken the same but was not found in the premises of respondent No.5 Corporation d, therefore, the minutes were being scribed on loose sheet of paper. The minutes further state that about 37 members were present, out of which 2 were -opted members who had no right of vote. When the meeting had been convened at 11.00 a.m., 62 elected representatives were present and 5 co-opted members were present. Out of the 62 elected members, only 35 members were present. The minutes further state that about 37 members were present, out of which 2 were -opted members who had no right of vote. When the meeting had been convened at 11.00 a.m., 62 elected representatives were present and 5 co-opted members were present. Out of the 62 elected members, only 35 members were present. The minutes of the meeting further undisputedly state that the nomination papers were not available and, therefore, on the basis of the profitability of the nominations in the computer the scrutiny was conducted. The meeting electing both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor i.e. respondents No.7 d 8 concluded at 4.30 p.m. A fax message at Exh.R-4 from the Deputy secretary of respondent No. 1 was received at 3.30 p.m. informing the Commissioner to hold the meeting as scheduled. 30. A reference in this behalf may usefully be made to a recent judgment of e Division Bench of this Court in Hemant Shriram Patil vs. Nanded Waghala ity Municipal Corporation, 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 531 . In the reported authority, the division Bench of this Court observed that after the adjournment of the special meeting of Corporation for appointment of the Chairman of the Standing Committee by the Mayor, the Councilors who were present after the adjournment commenced the meeting. Such meeting can only be described as clearly a gathering of the Councilors and cannot be said to be a meeting. 31. In the present case, according to us the first meeting had' adjourned by respondent No.3. We may again reiterate that the motive reason whether it be malicious or not in adjourning the meeting need inquired into by us. The meeting had, in fact, been adjourned and consequence the second meeting which had been, convened cannot by any stretch imagination be said to be a continuation of the first meeting nor an extension the first meeting. Since respondent No.3 had adjourned the meeting sine fresh meeting could only be convened in accordance with the Rules in behalf. The Rules require a notice giving three days time for convenient meeting. No notice of the second meeting was given to the Councilors while already left the meeting hall. The reason as to why the Councilors left affidavit meeting had been adjourned is wholly immaterial. From out of 62 elected Councillors only 35 Councillors were present in the meeting and, therefore sizable number of Councillors had left the meeting hall. No notice of the second meeting was given to the Councilors while already left the meeting hall. The reason as to why the Councilors left affidavit meeting had been adjourned is wholly immaterial. From out of 62 elected Councillors only 35 Councillors were present in the meeting and, therefore sizable number of Councillors had left the meeting hall. No notice was issues the Councillors intimating that the second meeting had been convened: petitioners in both the petitions were candidates who were contesting the of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, respectively and part from the other Councillors was incumbent that a notice convening the second meeting ought to have given. Even otherwise the question would still remain whether such a new given to the absent Councillors, make the second meeting a legally valid if it was held in breach of the statutory Rules regarding convening of the s meeting for the purpose of electing the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. juncture we may make a reference to the fact that the second meeting was fact, a truncated meeting. The first meeting had been adjourned and a meeting had been convened only on the basis of the advice given the Commissioner that a special meeting could not have been either cancel adjourned. The convening of the second meeting was in flagrant breach Rules and statutory mandate of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. We need not enter in the arena motives ascribed to the respondents in convening the second meeting. Su to say that the second meeting was a wholly illegal meeting which had convened in flagrant breach of the necessary Rules regarding convening second meeting for the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The original nomination papers were not available in the meeting and a farce of scrutiny the nomination papers and election of respondents No. 7 and 8 had conducted. The election of respondents No. 7 and 8 in the truncated second meeting cannot be sustainable in the eye of law as the convening of the meeting itself, according to us, was not legal. 32. It is necessary at this stage to make some observations regard' conduct of respondents No.3 and 6. We had given opportunity to the 1 Counsel representing the respondents to obtain the necessary instruction the respondents and inform us accordingly. Respondent No.3 was the outgoing. 32. It is necessary at this stage to make some observations regard' conduct of respondents No.3 and 6. We had given opportunity to the 1 Counsel representing the respondents to obtain the necessary instruction the respondents and inform us accordingly. Respondent No.3 was the outgoing. Mayor and the Chairman of the important meeting which had been convened the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The proceedings book II other relevant papers had been brought to the meeting hall by Secretary respondent No.6. When the meeting had been convened, respondent No. entrusted with the relevant documents/papers. Thus respondents No.3 and the custody of these documents/papers. After adjourning the meeting both these respondents left the meeting hall with the papers and the record. Respondent No. the outgoing Mayor and respondent No. 6 as a responsible officer of respondent No.5 ought to have taken proper care and custody of the documents papers which had been entrusted to them. These original papers have still not found and we are informed that a complaint in this behalf had been lodged against respondent No. 6 in the police station which is under investigation. Be as it may, as a responsible Officer respondent No.6 ought to have deposited documents and the papers with respondent No. 5 Corporation or some authorised person or if he had retained the custody of the documents and papers ought to have produced it when demanded. Since the police are investigating as whether respondent No. 6 had still retained the documents/papers or had sited the same with the respondent No.6, we refrain from making any observations in that behalf. However, according to us, both respondent No.3 and respondent No.6 have acted irresponsibly and negligently and not taking proper and custody of the vital documents and papers relating to the election to the e of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. 33. Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7 also invited our attention to sub-rule (10) of Rule 7 of the Bombay Provincial Corporations duct of Elections to the Office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005 short the Election Rules). The said sub-rule provides that the Presiding Authority, besides recording proceedings in writing, shall also cause the Proceedings to be recorded by way of video photography to ensure free and fair ions. Shri Shah submitted that this rule is also breached by respondent No.3, outgoing Mayor, who was presiding over the meeting. Mr. The said sub-rule provides that the Presiding Authority, besides recording proceedings in writing, shall also cause the Proceedings to be recorded by way of video photography to ensure free and fair ions. Shri Shah submitted that this rule is also breached by respondent No.3, outgoing Mayor, who was presiding over the meeting. Mr. Shah submitted respondent No.3 had predetermined to adjourn the meeting on one ground or other and did so by falsely declaring that there was pandemonium and it was possible to conduct the elections. To cover up his action of false declaration, as soon as the meeting was started first asked the video photographer to leave lace of meeting contrary to sub-rule (10) of Rule 7 of the Election Rules. We not inclined to go into this allegation attributed to respondent No. 3 in the argument of Shri Shah in the absence of sufficient pleadings to that effect in the potion and replies. It would however be sufficient to state that sub-rule (10) of 7 of the Election Rules does not appear to have been complied with. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion therefore, according to us, these ions deserve to be allowed and the proceedings of the meeting held on 29th, 2006, deserve to be quashed and set aside. With the result, we quash and side the elections of respondents No.7 and 8 as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of respondent No.5 Corporation. We are not wholly satisfied with the behaviour the conduct of the respondent No.3 in his conduct of the special meeting on June, 2006. It would therefore be appropriate to issue directions regarding next special meeting that would be required to be convened for the purpose of ting Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the respondent No. 5 Municipal oration. In Anil Kumar Jha vs. Union of India, reported in 2005(3) see 150, Hon'ble Supreme Court gave directions to the speaker of the assembly ding conducting of the meeting. We derive force from the said decision in giving directions to the respondent No. 3 regarding the conduct of the special meeting. In the light of that therefore we issue the following directions. i)Respondent Commissioner or any other Officer authorised. We derive force from the said decision in giving directions to the respondent No. 3 regarding the conduct of the special meeting. In the light of that therefore we issue the following directions. i)Respondent Commissioner or any other Officer authorised. behalf shall convene a special meeting for the purpose of election Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of the respondent No.5 Corpora expeditiously as possible giving the election programme would meet the requirements of the Act and the Rules. ii) Respondent No.3 shall, if present, be entitled to preside over meeting. The respondent No.3 or the Presiding Officer, in case of the absence of respondent No.3, shall conduct the meeting S and in accordance with the Election Rules and shall following Election Rules in letter and spirit. iii) The only agenda for the special meeting would be the election the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy. Mayor. iv) It is emphasised that the proceedings in the meeting shall be totally peaceful and disturbance, if any, caused therein shall be viewed seriously. v) We direct the Municipal Commissioner to take all steps in accordance with law and ensure the conduct of the meeting is held smoothly and peacefully as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than six weeks from the date of this decision. 35.Rule is therefore made absolute to the extent indicated above. 36. We quantify the cost in each petition at Rs. 10,000/- to be p respondents No.3 and 6. Order accordingly