JUDGMENT
G.P. Singh, C.J.
1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petn. No, 866 of 1983.
2. By notification dated 16th March, 1983 published in the Gazette, the State Government appointed Shri S. V. Ayer, Assistant Collector, Raipur, as the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation., Raipur, under Section 423 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. This order was issued on the assumption that the Corporation stood dissolved on 15th March, 1983 by expiration of its term. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the said action of the State Government and they contend that the term of the Corporation has not yet expired.
3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the first elections to constitute the Corporation were held on 31st Dec., 1978. On 29th Jan., 1979, a meeting of the elected Councillors was held to select Councillors. Another meeting of the elected Councillors was called for 12th Feb., 1979. A writ petition challenging the action of calling the second meeting, being Misc. Petn. No. 143 of 1979, was filed which was allowed by a
Division Bench of this Court on 27th Feb.,
1979. The notice calling the second meeting for 12th Feb., 1979 was quashed and the Reluming Officer was directed to complete the counting of votes polled in the meeting held on 29th Jan., 1979 and to declare the result of selection. The result of selection was declared on 16th March, 1979. In the meantime, a writ petition challenging the entire election, being Misc. Petn. No. 884 of 1979, was filed in the High Court which was dismissed on 20th Jan., 1979. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court against this decision which was dismissed on 4th Sept., 1979. In pursuance of the interim orders passed in these proceedings, no further meeting of the elected or selected Councillors was held. After the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the names of elected and selected Councillors were published in the Gazette on 6th Feb., 1980. The first meeting of the elected and selected Councillors was held on 27th . Feb., 1980, which elected the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Standing and other committees.
4. Section 5 of the Act contains definitions. Section 5 (13) defines the “Corporation’ to mean the Municipal Corporation of the city; and Sec. 5 (14) defines “Councillors” to mean any person who is legally a member of the Corporation. The Corporation consists of elected and selected Councillors as provided in Sec. 9 of the Act. Elected Councillors are those who are elected from wards. Selected Councillors are those who are selected by the elected Councillors by single transferable vote from amongst persons enrolled as voters. The term of office of the Councillors is provided for in Section 20, which reads as follows :
“20. Terms of Office.– (1) The terms of office of the Councillor elected at a general election or selected by the elected Councillors under this Act shall ordinarily be four years extensible by order of the Government for a period not exceeding one year in the aggregate for reasons which shall be notified in the Gazette.
(2) The term of office of such Councillors shall be deemed to commence on the date appointed for the first general meeting after
such election.”
* * * * *
5. Section 28 provides for the first meetiag after general election. This section reads as under :
“28. First meeting after general election.–(1) The Revenue Commissioner, or in his absence due to any reason, his representative not below the rank of a Collector as
may be authorised by him in his behalf ia the case of first general election and in the case of every subsequent election, shall call the first meeting of the Corporation as soon as the election and selection of the Councillors is notified to elect the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Standing and the Special Consultative Committees and transact, any other business.
(2) The meeting of the Corporation called under sub-section (1) shall be presided over by the Officer calling the meeting for the purpose of conducting the election of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor :
Provided that the Presiding Officer shall have no right to vote at such meeting and in case of equality of votes, the result shall be decided by lots.”
6. Rules have been made under the Act. We are here concerned with Rule 47 of the Rules known as the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Preparation, Revision and Publication of Electoral Rolls and Selection of Councillors) Rules, 1963. Rule 47 reads as follows :–
“47. Meeting of the elected Councillors.–The Commissioner shall within one month of every general election, call a meeting of the elected Councillors for the purpose of selecting Councillors, as required by Section 9 and shall give at least seven days’ notice of such meeting to each Councillor. The notice shall be deemed to have been served if it is delivered to the Councillor or person if sent by registered post to his address as given ia the roll or has been pasted at a conspicuous place at his residence.”
7. Both the parties agree that the term of Councillors is governed by Section 20 (2) which we have quoted above. The controversy that has arisen in these petitions relates to the true construction of the words “the date appointed for the first general meeting after such election” as they occur in this section. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first general meeting here referred to is the first meeting of the elected and selected councillors which is held under Section 28 and in which Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Standing and other Committees are elected. According t° the learned counsel for the respondents, the first general meeting in this section refers to the meeting of elected councillors for selecting councillors under Rule 47. It will be seen that the meeting of elected councillors to select councillors was held on 29th Jan., 1979 the result of which was declared on 16th Mar., 1979. According to the respondents,
16th March., 1979 is the starting point of the term of the elected and selected councillors and the term of four years expired on 15th March, 1983. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the first meeting of elected and selected councillors was held OD 27th Feb., 1980, this is the starting point of the term being the date of the first general meeting referred to in Section 20 (2) and the term of four years will expire on 26th Feb., 1984.
8. We have already referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and we have also indicated the nature of the controversy. The question before us is as to the meaning of the words “the date appointed for the first general meeting after such election” as they find place in Section 20 (2). It has already been seen that the Corporation consists of elected and selected councillors. The constitution of the Corporation is not complete till the selection is held by the elected members. A general meeting, according to dictionary meaning, is one to which all members of a society etc. are invited; (see Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, p. 357). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 1134, general meeting connotes “a meeting of all the stockholders of a corporation, all the creditors at a bankrupt, etc.” In the context of companies, a general meeting refers to a meeting of all the members of a company; whereas a class meeting refers to a meeting of a particular class of members (Crew on The Conduct of and Procedure at Public, Company and Local Government Meetings, 19th Edition, pp. 85-90). In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 18, p. 419, it is stated; “One of the definition of the words ‘general’ is ‘common to many’, or ‘the greatest number”. Another is ‘having relation to all’, ‘common to the whole’. “This is illustrated by further stating that “a meeting of the creditors of a debtor is not general if it be confined to a particular class”. Having regard to Us well accepted meaning, the expression “general meeting”, as it occurs in Section 20 (2) must have reference to a meeting of all the councillors and not of a particular class of councillors. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 is not confined to the elected councillors. It governs the term of office of all the concillors, whether elected or selected. The term begins on the date appointed for the first general meeting after such election. The general meeting in the context, in our opinion, must be construed to mean the first meeting of elected and selected councillors which is held under Section 28. The expression “general meeting” cannot be interpreted to mean a meeting of elected councillors only which is held under Rule 47 for selecting councillors. The meeting held under Rule 47 is a class meeting and not a general meeting.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the words “such election” as they occur in Section 20 (2) go to show that the general meeting referred in that section is the first meeting after the election of councillors and not the first meeting after selection of councillors. It is submitted that had the intention been otherwise, the Legislature would have used the words “such selection” or the words “such election and selection”. It is true that had [he Legislature used the words suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents, there would have been no room for argument and the matter would have been extremely plain; but even in the shape in which the section stands at present, we do not have any doubt about its meaning. The emphasis here is on the first general meeting and as a general meeting from its very nature cannot mean a meeting of a particular class of councillors, the first gene-ral meeting which takes place after election is the meeting under Section 28 after selection of councillors by the elected councillors. The conclusion reached by us is also supported by the language used in Section 28. The heading of this section reads; “First meeting after general election”. Although the expression used here is first meeting and not first general meeting, yet it makes little difference and the meeting referred to in Section 28 is the first general meeting i. e. the first meeting of elected and selected councillors who constitute the Corporation. It is for this reason that this meeting is also referred to as the first meeting of the Corporation in the body of Section 28. It is in this meeting that the Corporation, as constituted, starts to function and can be said to assume office by electing the Mayor and other authorities. Further, if we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, an anomaly would be created that the term of office of the Fourth Mayor and Deputy Mayor and the Fourth Committees will not coincide with the expiry of the term of the Corporation. The term cf Mayor and Deputy Mayor is one year from the date of the meeting in which they are elected. Tbis is provided in Section 23. Similarly, the term of Standing Committee is one year as provided in Section 38. Now if the term of the Corporation i. e. of elected and selected councillors begins from the date of the meeting of the elected councillors to select councillors and the term of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee begins from the date of the first meeting of the elected and selected councillors, it is obvious that the term of the Fourth Mayor and Deputy Mayor and the Fourth Standing Committee would not coincide with the term of the Corporation and they will have less than one year as their term, which will be against ‘be provisions contained in Sections 23 and 38. The conclusion reached by us that the first general meeting referred to in Section 20 (2) is the meeting held under Section 28 and not the meeting held under Rule 47, avoids this anomaly.
10. In the view that we have taken, the term of the Corporation commenced from 27th Feb., 1980 and it will expire on 26th Feb.. 1984. It necessarily follows that the Government issued the notification appointing the Administrator under Section 423 under an erroneous assumption that the Corporation stood dissolved by expiry of its term.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that as the Mayor and all the councillors have not been joined in these petitions, no relief should be granted to the petitioners. We are unable to accept this submission. Petitioner No. 1 in Misc. Petition No. 908 of 1983 is the Deputy Mayor and Chairman of the Standing Committee. Petitioners 2 and 3 are councillors of the Corporation. In Misc. Petition No. 866 of 1983, the petitioner is a councillor. The petitioners have sufficient interest to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of [he Constitution and we cannot decline to exercise our jurisdiction simply because the Mayor and all the councillors have not been joined as parties.
12. The petitions are allowed. We declare that the term of the Councillors of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur will continue up to 26th Feb., 1984. We also quash the notification under Section 423 issued by the State Government on 16th March., 1983 treating the Corporation as dissolved and appointing the Administrator of the Corporation. There will be no order as to costs of these petitions.