Holding

The meeting was not adjourned for the day nor sine die; it was merely suspended and later resumed the same day, so the election was valid.

Summary

The first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation was convened on 6 May 1988 to elect the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members. A violent disturbance broke out when opposition councillors seized ballot boxes and chairs were thrown, prompting the Municipal Commissioner to adjourn the proceedings at 2:45 p.m. He later announced that the meeting would resume at 4:30 p.m. after order was restored. The petitioner argued that the meeting had been "adjourned for the day" or "adjourned sine die", which under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Rules would require a fresh seven‑day notice, rendering the elections invalid. The High Court held that the meeting was merely suspended and could be resumed the same day, upholding the election results. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, holding that the Commissioner’s adjournment was a temporary suspension, not a sine‑die adjournment, and therefore the election was valid.

Issues considered

Whether the first meeting of a municipal corporation, adjourned due to disorder, constitutes an adjournment "for the day" or "sine die" requiring a fresh notice under the Rules.
Whether the Municipal Commissioner has the authority to adjourn or suspend the meeting in such circumstances.
Whether the election of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members held after the suspension is valid.

Legislation cited

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949s. 19, s. 20, s. 6(2)
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Rules (under s.453)s. Rule 1(b), s. Rule 1(h), s. Rule 1(m), s. Rule 2(3)
Constitution of Indias. 136

Subjects

municipal corporationfirst meetingadjournmentsine dieelectionMayorDeputy Mayorstanding committeemunicipal lawprocedural lawsuspension of proceedingsdisordernotice requirement

Judgment

CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE
A
v.
DR. SHANTARAM KALE & ORS.

JULY 29, 1988

[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ .. ] B

Municipalities: Bombay Provincial Corporation Act 1949/
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Rules.

Section 453/Chapter II Rule J(h)-Powers of Chairman-
'Adjourned for the day', adjourned sine die,' 'proceedings suspended'- C
Distinction betweem. ·

Section 6(2)-First meeting of the Municipal Corporation-
Properly convened-Cannot be adjourned for another day or sine die.

Words and phrases: 'Adjourned for the day' 'adjourned sine D
• die'-Meaning of.

Aller the election of Members, the first meeting of the Auranga-
bad Municipal Corporation was held on May 6, 1983 at 2 P.M. and the
Municipal Commissioner announced that the polling for the offices of
Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of the standing Committee would E
commence from 2.30 p.m. onwards. But at 2.30 P .M. some of the
CounciUors belonging to the Opposition Party sat on the ballot
boxes and some. others surrounded the Municipal Commissioner and
demanded that the meeting be adjourned to a subsequent date. The
'. Councillors belonging to the ruling party demanded that the meeting
and election be held later on that day. Total confusion and bedlam F
prevailed and the rival groups started throwing Chairs at each other,
leading to a pandemonium. It was a free for all, and even outsiders were
present. When the situation was brought under control, the Municipal
Commissioner announced that the meeting would continue and the elec-
tions would be held at 4.30 p.m.
G
The. petitioner filed a protest at 4.15 p.m. stating that the meeting
had been adjourned by the Municipal Commissioner for the day and,
therefore, the holding of the meeting later on the same day would he
> improper and illegal. Thereafter, the opposition group abstained from
participating in the meeting held at 4.30 p.m., in which Respondents 1
and 2 were declared elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively H
725
f'
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. \

A and Respondents 3-8 as Members of the Standing Committee.

In a Writ Petition filed before the High Court, the appellant
questioned the election, on the basis that the meeting in which the
election was held, was invalid. The High Court held that the meeting
was not adjourned for the day or sine die, but was only postponed, to be
B held as soon as peace was restored on the very day and upheld the
election of Respondents 1 to 8. Against the judgment of the High Court,
the petitioner has filed the present special leave.11etition.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the meeting was
not adjourned to a definite point of time and must therefore be
C regarded as adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die.

The contention ot tbe Respondents was that the meeting had not
been adjourned sine die but the proceedings had merely been suspended
at 2.45 p.m. and the adjourned meeting held at 4.30 p.m. was a con-
tinuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an adjourned
D meeting had to be given. It was also contended that there was no
warrant for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution since a ~
finding of fact had been reached by the High Court on consideration of
the material on record.

Dismissing.the petition,
E
HELD: 1. A properly convened meeting cannot be jlostponed.
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, membei:i; will be entitled to ignore the notice of
postponement, and, if sufficient to form a quorum, hold the meeting as
F originally convened and validly transact the business thereat. Even if
the relevant rules do not give the chairman power to adjourn the meet-
ing, 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 th0$e
present. [739F-G]
G
2.1 In the instant case, the High Court was right in holding 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 re-commence when peace and
H order were restored. [7400-E]
C. KHAIRE v. li>R. S. KALE 727
A
2.2· There is nothing on re.:ord to sustantiate the petitioner's sub·
mission that the first meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1988 at 2
P .M. was 'adjourned for the day' or 'adjourned sine-die' without trans-
acting any business i.e. without consideration of the agenda for the day.
On the contrary, it is not in dispute that the bnslness for the day was •
partly transacted when the CounciUors met at 2 p.m. as scheduled and B
the Municipal Commissioner declared that the polling would commence
from 2.30 p.m. onwards. The trouble started at 2.30 p.m. when the
CounciUors belonging to the petitioner's party prevented the casting of
votes by snatching away the ballot boxes from the polling booths and sat
upon them. There was a pre-determined plan on their part not to allow
the first meeting to be held on that day. But the Municipal Commis·
sioner did not give way to the commotion and pandemonium and he did c
not put off the meeting to another day. In the prevailing situation, the
Municipal Commissioner had no other alternative but to adjourn the
meeting. Under the scheme of the Act, when the term of the elected
Councillors is a period of live years which in terms of sub-section (2) of
section 6 of the Act is deemed to commence on the date of the first D
meeting, the Municipal Commissioner obviously could not adjourn the
·°t"' meeting for another day or adjourn it sine die. If the contention that the
meeting having been adjourned without specifying a definite point of
time were to prevail, it would give rise to a serious anomaly. The effect
of adjourning the first meeting to another day would imply the coming
into existence of another deemed date under s. 6(2) of the Act for E
commencement of the term of the Councillors. The fact that the Munici-
pal Commissioner did not leave the House or vacate the seat lends
support to the version that he had merely suspended the1proceedings till
order was restored. [737 A-E] .

... Smt. Menaka Bala Dasi v. Hiralal Gobindalal & Anr., 37 CWN
583 and Sheokumar Shashtri v. Municipal Committee, Rajnandgaon,
F

AIR 1964 MP 195 Distinguished.

Shackelton on the Law ·& Practice of Meeting, 7th Edn. p. 44,
Horsley's Meetings Procedure, Law and Practice, 2nd Edition; p. 84,
.' para 1002 referred to. G

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 7508 of 1988.

~ From the Judgment and order dated 28.6.1988 of the Bombay
High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 800 of 1988. H
(
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981!] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

S.N. Kacker, U.R. Lalit, V.D. Joshi, B.D. Joshi, S.C: Bora and
A
K'ailash Vasdev for the Petitioner.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.A. Bobde, V.J. Francis, N.M. Popli and
Miss Almjit Chauhan for the Respondents.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This special leave petition is directed against the judg-
ment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated June 28, 1988
upholding the election of respondents nos. 1 and 2 Dr. Shantaram
Kale and Takiqui Hassan as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively,
and respondents nos. 3-8 as Members of the Standing Committee at
c the first meeting of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation at the
Alankar Hall, held on May 6, 1988 at 2 p.n. The issue involved is
whether the first meeting of the Corporation called for that day at 2.45
p.m. by the MU1Jicipal Commissioner, respondent no. 9, who presided
over the meeting, was adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die and
D therefore had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him
and thus necessitated the giving of seven days' clear notice as required
by r. l(h), Chapter II of the Rules framed under s.. 453 of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. ·

Since the question involved was a matter of moment and the
E affidavits filed by the petitioner Chandrakant Khaire, the leader of the
Shiv Sena Party which is the largest single group in the Corporation
consisting of 18 Concillors, and by some of the Councillors as well as
their supporters, and the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Party-in
power Congress-I which has formed a coalition with the splinter
groups commanding a majority of 32 Councillors in a Ho.use of 60,
F raise controverted facts as to whether the proceedings of the meeting
had been adjourned sine die or merely suspended, we thought it better
to have the minutes of the proceedings before us. Shri Vinod Bobde,
learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Commissioner has placed
the minute books written in Marathi along with a translation thereof
in English. At the last occasion we were left with the impression that the
G word used by the Municipal Commissioner was 'tahkub' while
adjourning the meeting at 2.45 p.m. amidst unprecedented scenes of
complete disorder, commotion and pendemonium. We now find the
word used in the minutes is 'sthagit' but in the translation furnished the
word used is 'adjourned' .

.H The facts revealed in the counter-affidavits filed by the Munici-
~ C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE [SEN, J.] 729

pal Commissioner, Collector and the Superintendent of Police show
A
that a serious law and order situation had arisen due to which both the
Collector and the Superintendent of Police had to rush to the venue of
the meeting. They both have sworn to the· fact that not only the
Councillors but many outsiders were present in the hall where the
meeting was being held. There were also a large ·number of supporters
of the rival parties, spectators and journalists. The Municipal Commis- B
sioner was surrounded by some 20-25 persons apart from the Council-
!ors, one group insisting upon the meeting being adjourned for the day
i.e. the Councillors belonging to the majority Shiv Sena Party while
the other group consisting of the Congress-I Party and the splinter
groups forming the coalition demanding that the meeting be conti-
nued. The Collector has sworn to the fact that there was 'total confu-
sion and bedlam inside the hall apart from the fact that the entire c
atmosphere was surcharged with commotion' and no business could be
transacted. He has further sworn to the fact that respondent no. 9, the
Municipal Commissioner, the presiding officer, appeared to be 'in a
very agitated state of mind' and told him that he could not hold the
·~
meeting in the unruly and disorderly situation prevailing and comp- D
lained that despite his repeated requests to the COuncillors to, main-
tain peace, it had no effect and they kept on shouting, raising slogans
and fighting amongst themselves and thereby making it impossible for
him to transact any bu°siness. The meeting was scheduled to be held at
2 p.m. and respondent no. 9 announced that the polling for the offices
of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee E
would commence from 2.30 p.m. onwards.

What happened thereafter reveals a very disturbing feature
which unfortunately has become too common these days and shows
the strain through which our democratic system is passing. At about
"' 2.30 p.m. some of the Councillors belonging to the Shiv Sena Party sat F
on the ballot boxes and others belonging to that Party and its sup-
porters surrounded the Municipal Commissioner demanding that the
meeting be adjourned to a subsequent date. Thereupon, the Council-
!ors belonging to the Party-in-power i.e. Congress-I, started shouting
at him that the meeting be held later on that day, being apprehensive
that "if the meeting were to be adjourned, they might lose the contest. G
There followed shouting of slogans, hurling of abuses and thumping of
the tables. The Councillors belonging to the rival groups then started
throwing chairs at each other leading to a pandemonium. That the fact
~
':) that not only Councillors but also many outsiders were present in the
hall where the meeting was being held who really had no business to be
there,)s clearly brought out in the affidavits sworn by the Municipal H

£,
730 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

Commissioner, Collector and the Superintendent of Police. They also
show a large number of persons freely entering and leaving the hall. It
is apparent from the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police that
during the time when all this happened, Viswasrao Deshmukh,
Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra came into his office
and left the premises while he was actually busy in supervising the
B bandobust. We have been shown photographs showing the presence of
a large number of policemen wielding lathis inside the hall. The Col-
lector's affidavit reveals that the Superintendent of Police personally
requested Chagan Bhujbal, a sitting Member of the State Legislative
Assembly belonging to the Shiv Sena Party, to keep himself away from
the premises of the meeting hall. Be that as it may, it appears that both
the officers asked the outsiders to clear out of the hall, requested the
c Councillors to take their places so as to permit the Municipal Commis-
sioner to transact the business for the day and brought the situation under
control. They have sworn to the fact that after the Councillors had
calmed down and order was restored, both of them left the hall. There-
after, the Municipal Commissioner apparently announced on the. mike
D that the meeting would continue and the elections would be held at
4.30 p.m. The petitioner Chandrakant Khaire being the leader of the
Shiv Sena Party, filed a written protest at 4.15 p.m. that the meeting
had been adjourned by the Municipal Commissioner for the day and
therefore the holding of the meeting later on that day would be impro-
per and illegal. After this, the Councillors belonging to the opposition
E group abstained from participating in the meeting held at 4.30 p.m. at
which respondents nos. 1 and 2 Dr. Shantaram Kale and Takiqui
Hassan were declared elected as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respec-
tively and respondents nos. 3-8 as Members of the Standing Commit-
tee, each of them having polled 32 votes.

F We had benefit of hearing Shri S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for respon-
dents nos. 1-8 and Shri Vinod Bobde, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 9, the Municipal Commissioner. After a protracted
hearing we at the end of the day reserved orders. Having given the
matter our anxious consideration, we find it difficult to interfere with
G the judgment of the High Court.

In view of the conflicting affidavits, the petitioner and his sup-
porters asserting that the Municipal Commissioner had adjourned the
meeting for the day and respondent no. 2 reiterating the version of the ~· ,
Municipal Commissioner that he had only suspended the proceedings
H so that the meeting could be held later in the day and the business for
~ C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE [SEN, J.[ 731

the day, namely, election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members A
of the Standing Committee, could be transacted, the High Court rely-
ing on the 'preponderance of probabilities' has come to the conclusion
that in the facts and circumstances the affidavit of the Municipal Com-
missioner, respondent no. 9, appeared to be 'more impressive, prob-
able and convincing' and therefore they were inclined to accept it as
'one inspiring confidence'. Acting upon the affidavit sworn by respon- B
dent no. 9, the Municipal Commissioner, the High Court has found as
a fact that the meeting was not adjourned for the day or sine die but it
was to be held as soon as peace was restored on the very day i.e. the
meeting had only been postponed. That is an inference drawn from
affidavits and we find no just and compelling reasons to upset the
same.
c
Shri S.N. Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the High Court erred in proceeding on probabilities in deciding
the present matter which has far-reaching ramifications affecting the
democratic principles. It is said that the High Court having found that
because of unruly and provocative atmosphere· prevailing in the meet- D
' ing hall, the Municipal Commissioner was required to adjourn the
meeting in order to restore peace and to re-arrange the furniture which
was helter-skelter as the Councillors, it is stated, threw chairs at each
other, erred in taking the view that the meeting was not adjourned for
. the day or sine die but had merely been suspended when in fact, the
business for the day, namely, elections to the offices of Mayor, Deputy E
Mayor and Members of the Standing Committee, could not obviously
be transacted. He further contended that when the Municipal Com-
missioner on his own showing had to adjourn the proceedings in view
of the prevailing atmosphere and since he felt it was impossible to
.,,. continue the election process in that situation, it was wrongly held by
the High Court that the meeting was not adjourned sine die when the F
Municipal Commissioner unequivocally admits that such adjournment
was necessary to enable him to decide and announce the time for the
resumption of the further proceedings. In substance, the contention is
that the meeting was not adjourned to a definite point of time and
must therefore be regarded as adjourned for the day or adjourned sine
die. The learned counsel referred to several law dictionaries to bring G
out the meaning. of the expression 'adjourned sine die' and relied upon
the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Menaka Bala Dasi v.
Hiralal Gobindalal & Anr., 37 CWN 583 and that of the Madhya
·71 Pradesh High Court in Sheokumar Shashtri v. Municipal Committee,
Rajnandgaon, AIR (1964) MP 195, and also to a passage from Shack-
leton on the Law & Practice of Meetings, 7th edn. at p. 44 for the H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A submission that in the case of adjournment sine die, the meeting
stands adjourned to an unspecified date and as .such a fresh notice
calling for the meeting is necessary.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale appearing for respondents nos. 1-8 and Shri
Vinod Bobde for respondent no. 9, on the other hand, contended that
B the meeting had not been adjourned sine die but the proceedings had
merely been suspended at 2.45 p.m. and the adjourned meeting at 4.30 ~
p.m. was a continuation of the original meeting and no new notice of an
adjourned meeting had to be given. It was contended further that
there was no warrant for interference under Art. 136 of the Constitu-
tion since a finding of fact has been reached by the High Court on a
consideration of the Material on record. It was also contended that the
c petitioner having failed to make good the averment in the writ petition
that the meeting had been 'adjourned for the day', the High Court was
justified in declining to interfere.

In order to appreciate the point in controversy, it is necessary to
D set out the relevant statutory provisions bearing on the question. It is
needless to stress that a Municipal Corporation cannot function with-
out the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Members of the Standing Commit-
tee who are entrusted with certain functions and duties under the Act.
Sub-s. (1) of s. 19 of the Act provides that 'the Corporation shall at its
first meeting after the general elections . . . . . . . . . . . elect from
E amongst the Councillors one of its members to be the Mayor and
another to be the Deputy Mayor', their term of office being one year.
Sub-s. (2) of s. 20 enacts that 'the Corporation shall at its first meeting
after the general elections appoint 12 persons out of its own body to be
Members of the Standing Committee'. The term of office of the
elected Councillors, as provided by s. 6(1), is a period of five years
F which in terms of sub-s. (2) is deemed to commence on the date of the "'·
first meeting called by the Municipal Commissioner. The relevant
Rules framed under s. 453 of the Act relating to the proceedings of the
Corporation are as follows:

"l(b). The first meeting of the Corporation after general
G elections shall be held as early as conveniently may be on a
day and at a time and place to be fixed by the Commis-
sioner, and if not held on that day shall be held on some
subsequent date to be fixed by the Commissioner."

"l(h). At least seven clear days' notice shall ordinarily be
H given of every meeting, other than any adjourned meeting
"
~ C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE !SEN, J.] 733
"'\
"l(m). Any meeting may, with the consent of a majority of.
the councillors present be adjourned from time to time to a A
later hour on the same day or to any other, but no \:msiness
shall be transaeted and, except as is hereinafter provided,
no proposition shall be discussed at any adjourned meeting
other than the business or proposition remaining undis-
posed of at the meeting from which the adjournment took B
place."

"2(3). The Presiding Officer may in case of grave disorder
suspend the meeting for a period not exceeding three ·
days."

It is therefore quite obvious that the first meeting of the Corporation is c
of prime importance. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that
cl.(m) may not govern the first meeting of the Corporation but relates
to subsequent meetings. The question before us is whether the. first
meeting 'could not be held on that day' within the meaning of cl. (b) of
r. 1 and therefore had to be held 'on some subsequent date to be fixed D
' by the Municipal Commissioner'. The affidavits on record clearly show
· that the Municipal Commissioner who presided .over the meeting, was
constrained to adjourn the meeting. at 2.45 p.m. when some of the
Councillors belMging to the Shiv'Seria Party, of which the petitioner is
the leader, went inside the booth and forcibly removed the ballot
boxes and sat upon them to prevent casting of any votes, giving rise to E
commotion and pandemonium. What actually happened is best stated
by the Municipal Commissioner in his affidavit:

"As a result there was tremendous confusion, chaos and
uproar in the house and there ·was tremendous noise and
" nothing could be heard clearly.
" F

I say that there was tremendous tension ·and the situa-
tion was going out of control and it was not possible to
conduct the election at the moment of time and therefore I
'
announced that the meeting is adjourned and that the
Councillors should restore peace. I also said that I shall G
_, soon announce the time of meeting.

I say that I did not leave the house and remained in

~
) the chair of the Presiding Authority hoping that the peace
would be restored and I would be able to announce the
time of the meeting. Thereafter Shri Man Mohan Singh H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. l S.C.R. fl
A Oberoi raised the point of order that the meeting should
not be adjourned and that he along with another Councillor
....I'"
Dr. Sancheti insisted that meeting should continue. At this
stage the situation in the house worsened and in fact there
was hot exchange of words and shouting between different
groups of Councillors. An attempt was made to throw
B chairs at each other and in fact the furniture in the house
was scattered and several Councillors surrounded me and
some spoke in favour of adjournment and some spoke in .
'
favour of continuation. My efforts to restore peace and
order were futile, and there was serious law and order
situation.
c In the circumstances aforesaid there was no alterna-
tive and I felt that it was my duty to seek the Police help
and I called the Police to restore order. Thereupon some of
the Councillors objected and actually resisted the entry of
the Police. Thereafter on my directives the Police soon left.
D Some of the Shiv Sena Councillors were in aggressive mood
and they came to my table and violently thumped the table f'
and shouted that they would not allow this meeting to take
place. During this period I even suggested that the Council-
!ors should go out. This was necessary as I felt that without
that the furniture cannot be re-arranged and further steps
E for resuming the meeting will not be. possible. In the
meantime the District Magistrate Shri R.R. Sinha and
Supdt. of Police Shri T.C. Wankhede entered the Hall.
S.P. Shri Wankhede appealed the Councillors on the mike
to restore peace. I say that discussions took place between
myself and the Dist. Magistrate with a view to restore the
~,
F peace. The Dist. Magistrate Shri Sinha also appealed to
restore peace. Thereafter the Councillors were calmed ·"'
down. and the order was restored. On the reace being
restored both the District Magistrate and the S.P. left the
house at 3.45 p.m. I announced on the mike that meeting
would continue and election would be held at 4.30 p.m."
G
******* ******* ;.

" .... in effect the adjournment declared by me as afore- Y<
said amounts to suspension of the meeting because of the
(~
.L
'"'
grave disorder .... "
H
******* *******
J
f:-
,L_
C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE [SEN, J.] 735

"I also said that I shall soon make an announcement about
the time for resuming the meeting."
A

******·* *******
"I had to adjourn the proceedings in view of the prevailing
circumstances set out hereinabove and since I felt that it B
was impossible to continue the election process in that situ-
ation. It was also necessary to enable myself to decide and
announce the time for the resumption of the further pro-
ceedings of the meeting."

While setting out the facts we have already adverted to the facts
sworn by the Collector and the Superintendent of Police. There is no c
reason not to act on these affidavits. The Collector says that 'there was
total confusion and bedlam inside the hall' apart from the fact that 'the
entire atmosphere was surcharged with commotion', and 'the Munici-
pal Commissioner was in a very agitated state of mind and said that he
could not hold the meeting in the unruly and disorderly situation pre- D
vailing'. There can be no doubt that such unruly scenes witnessed on
that day gave rise to a serious law and order situation but both the
Collector and the Superintendent of Police were able to restore order
in the House and prevailed upon the outsiders to vacate the meeting
hall in order that the proceedings could be resumed. The fact that the
Municipal Commissioner did not leave the House or vacate the seat E
does lend support to the version that he had merely suspended the
proceedings till order was restored. There is no reason to doubt the
affidavit sworn by the Municipal Commissioner that he announced on
the mike at 3.45 p.m. that the proceedings would be resumed at 4.30
p.m. for transacting the business for the day .
•• F
It is quite obvious that the meeting was not 'adjourned for the
day' or 'adjourned sine die'. Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that when the affidavits of the three officers
showed that utter confusion prevailed and there was pandemonium all
around with strangers moving about in the meeting hall, it must neces-
sarily follow that no business could be transacted on that day. The G
contention is that the meeting was not adjourned to a definite point of
time and must therefore be regarded as 'adjourned for the day' or
'adjourned sine die'. He referred to the decisions in Menaka Bala Dasi
.,. ·• arid Sheokumar Shashtri, as also to various law dictionaries, besides a
passage from Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, 7th
edn. at p. 44.0n the strength of these authorities, it was submitted that H
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. f
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A the meeting was adjourned not to a definite point of time and must
therefore be regarded as 'adjourned for the day' or 'adjourned sine
die'. He accordingly submitted that the Municipal Commissioner
should have fixed another date for the meeting and issued fresh notice ..
therefor. We are afraid, we cannot accept this line ofreasoning. '

B According to the ordinary meaning, the expression 'sine die' as
given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 3rd edn., vol. II at p. 2000 means:

"Without any day being specified (for reassembling,
resumption of business etc.); indefinitely."

Similarly, in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International.
c edn., theimeaning given is more or less the same:

"Without a day; indefinitely: an adjournment sine die (that
is, without setting a day for ressembling)."

D The same is the legal meaning. In Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 4th
edn. at p. 1556, the meaning of the expression sine die is:

"Without day; without assigning a day for a further meet-
ing or hearing." (

E The legal meaning given in Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 2nd
edn., vol. II at p. 1663 reads: '

"Without a day being fixed. The consideration of a matter
is said to be adjourned sine die when it is adjourned with-
out a day being fixed for its resumptiun."
F
...
The passage in Shackleton at p. 44 on which the learned counsel relies
reads:

"Adjourned meetings: Notice. An adjournment, if bona
fide, is only a continuation of the meeting and the notice
G that was given for the first meeting holds good for and
includes all the other meetings following up it. If however
the meeting is adjourned sine die, a fresh notice must be
given.

No new business can be introduced unless notice of
H such new business is given.,.,

..,•
'•
'
••
C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE [SEN, J.] 737

There can be no dispute with the proposition but the difficulty is A
about the applicability of that principle to the facts of the case. Liter-
ally, there is nothing on record to substantiate the petitioner's submis-
sion that the first meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1988 at 2
p.m. was 'adjourned for the day' or 'adjourned sine die' without trans-
acting any business· i.e. without consideration of the agenda for the
day. On the contrary, it' is not in dispute that the business for the day B
was partly transacted when the Councillors met at 2 p.m. as scheduled
and the Municipal Commissioner declared that the polling would com-
mence from 2.30 p.m. onwards. The trouble started at 2.30 p.m. when
the Councillors belonging to the petitioner's Shiv Sena Party preven-
ted the casting of votes by snatching away the ballot boxes from the
polling booths and sat upon them. There was a pre-determined plan on
their part not to allow the first meeting to be held on that day. But the c
Municipal Commissioner did not give way to the commotion and
pandemonium and he did not put off the meeting to another day. In
the prevailing ~ituation, the Municipal Commissioner had no other
alternative but to.adjourn the meeting. Under the scheme of the Act,
when the term of the elected Councillors is a period of five years which D
' in terms of sub-s. (2) .of s. 6 of the Act is deemed to commence on the
date of the first meeting, the Municipal Commissioner obviously could
not adjourn the meeting for another day or adjourn it sine die. If the
contention that the meeting having been adjourned without specifying
a definite point of time were to prevail, it would give rise to a serious
anomaly. The effect of adjourning the first meeting to another day E
would imply the coming into existence of another deemed date under
s. 6(2) of the Act for commencement of the term of the Councillors.
The Municipal Co~missioner has unequivocally asserted that he only
suspended the proceedings in order that they could be resumed for
transaction of the business for the day, and the business for the day
had to be transacted on May 6, 1988, the date of the first meeting, as F
fixed by him. Admittedly, the Municipal Commissioner did not leave
the meeting hall nor vacate his seat. He showed exemplary courage in
not yielding to the threats of violence wielded by the party in opposi-
tion, because he knew that in law the first meeting had to be held on
that ·day and could not be adjourned to another day. There is no
reason to disbelieve .the Municipal Commissioner that when he G
adjourned the meeting he simultaneously made an announcement that
he would later announce the time when the meeting was to be
resumed. He is candid enough to say that he had to adjourn the prq-
ceedings in view of the prevailing situation when he felt that it was
impossible to continue the election process hoping that peace would
soon be restored and he would be able to announce the time of the H
II

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

meeting. One of the reasons given for the adjournment was that he
A
adjourned the meeting to enable him to decide ~nd announce the time
for the resumption of the further proceedings of the meeting ..

Rankin, CJ in Menaka Bala Dasi's case in repelling the conten-
tion that adjournment sine die of an application for making a decree in
a a mortgage suit final, was a discontinuance of it, observed:

"(W)hatever may be the old authorities on that point, I
have no doubt myself that with us to-day 'adjournment sine
die' differs altogether from discontinuance. It is after all an
adjournment-an adjournment to a date that is not at the
moment fixed."
t
The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheokumar
Shasthri's case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is
clearly distinguishable. In that case, it was admitted that the meeting
of the Municipal Committee summoned for January 17, 1962 at which
D the motion of no confidence was to have been moved was adjourned
sine die for want of quorum and th~ High Court held relying upon the
proviso to s. 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, that a
meeting convened for consideration of a no confidence motion could
not be adjourned sine die, but had to be adjourned to 'some other day'
for which a fresh notice was necessary, P.V. Dixit, CJ speaking for
E himself and K.L. Pandey, J. observed:

"It is settled law that where there is a power of adjourn-
ment and a meeting is adjourned, then the adjourned meet-
ing is a continuation of the original meeting and no new
notice of an adjourned meeting need be given unless the
F relevant statutory provisions or rules so require. But in the
case of an adjournment sine die a fresh notice is necessary,
(See: Scadding v. Lorant, [1851] 3 HLC 418; and Wills v.
Murray, [1850) 4 Ex 843. The proviso to section 32 of the
C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, laid down that:

G "If at any ordinary or special meeting of the commit-
tee a quorum is not present, the Chairman shall
adjourn the meeting to such other day as he may
think fit ........ "

Under this proviso, a meeting could be adjourned to some
H fixed date and not sine die."
C. KHAIRE v. DR. S. KALE (SEN, J.) 739

The decision in Sheokumar Shashtri is therefore of no avail.
A

Shackleton on the Law & Practice of Meetings, 7th edn. apart
from the passage at p. 44 already quoted, gives the different shades of
meaning of adjournment as understood in legal parlance, in the
fo llowing words:
B
"Adjournment is the act is postponing a meeting of any
private or public body or any business until another time,
or indefinitely, in which case it is an adjournment sine die.
The word applies also to the period during which the meet
ing or business stands adjourned. An Adjournment may be:

c
1. For an interval expiring on the day of the
adjournment.

2. For an interval expiring on some later date.

3. For an indefinite time (i.e. sine die). D

4. Until a fixed time and date.

5. To another place."

The learned author then sets out the different causes giving rise to an E
adjournment which may be by (1) Resolution of the meeting. (2)
Action of the chairman, and (3) Failure to achieve or maintain a
quorum.

A properly convened meeting cannot be postponed. The proper
course to adopt is to hold the meeting as originally intended, and then F
and there adjourn it to a more suitable date. If this course be not
adopted, members will be entitled to ignore the notice of postpone
ment, and, if sufficient to form a quorum, hold the meeting as origi
nally 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 G
for no longer than the chairman considers necessary and the chairman
must, so far as possible, communicate his decision to those present.

The law relating to adjournment has been put succinctly in Hors-
1ey's Meetings Procedure, Law and Practice, 2nd edn., edt. by W.
John Taggart at p. 84, para 1002: H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A "The word 'adjournment' tends to be used loosely in
connection with meetings. Indeed, as a result, the word is
possibly in process of acquiring a further, derived meaning
of 'close, conclude or finish', whereas a meeting or. a
debate is adjourned when its further proceedings are post-
poned to some subsequent time or to enable it to reassem-
ble at ·some other place; to a later hour in the same day, to
some future date, or indefinitely, i.e. sine die (without a
day being named). The business (of the whole meeting or
the debate respectively) is indeed suspended, but with an
intention of deferring'it until resumption at a later time."

'c The foamed author'goes on to say'that the word 'adjourn' has been in
use far itlinost five centUries in connection with meetings, w!th ail early
meaning of 'to put off or defer proceedings to another day', and adds:

"This i.n due course gave rise to the added meaning 'to
ro break off forlater resumption'."

On an overall view of the facts and circuinstances, we 'have no
nesltation in upholding the fi11ding that the 'first meeting of the ·Munici-
pal Co'iporation 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 re-commence when peace and order were restored.

. In the result, the special leave petition must fail and is dismissed.
No costs.

G.N. Petition dismissed.