Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ZINABHAI RANCHHODJI DARJI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1971
BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
HEGDE, K.S.
RAY, A.N.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 999 1972 SCR (2) 686
1972 SCC (1) 233
ACT:
Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961--s. 310 A--Sub-section 1 of s.
310A--Its Scope--Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations
Act 1949--S. 3(3) and S. 493--Its Scope and Gujarat
Municipalities Act 1963--S.279(2)--Its scope and their
interpretation.
HEADNOTE:
In a Taluka Panchayat election in 1968, Respt. No. 1 was
elected as a member and he was elected president of the
Taluka Panchayat. Thereupon, he became ex-officio member of
the Surat district Panchayat under S. 15(i)(A)(i) of the
Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961. He was ultimately elected
President of the Surat District Panchayat. He ceased to
hold his office of President of the Taluka Panchayat. The
district in question consists of several Talukas; one of
such Talukas was called ’C’ Taluka for which a Taluka
Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the
Panchayat Act. Two areas known as ’R’ & ’A’ were subject to
the authority of the District Panchayat and the ’C’ Taluka
Panchayat ’R’ had a Nagar Panchayat and ’A’ bad a Gram
Panchayat. In 1970, the State Govt. by a notification under
S. 3(3),of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,
1949, included the local areas of ’R’ & ’A’ within the
limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation and by this
notification, it was declared that the local area of ’R’
shall cease to be a Nagar and that of ’A’ shall cease to be
a Gram. The result was that ’R’ & ’A’ stood excluded from
the limits of ’C’ Taluka Panchayat & the Surat District Pan-
chayat from January 1971 with a direction that the members
of the dissolved Panchayat shall vacate offices and that the
Taluka & the District Panchayat shall be reconstituted with
members specified in clause 3 of the order read with
Schedule 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 having ceased to hold
office as President of the Taluka Panchayat when he was
elected Is President of the District Panchayat, could not
act as an ex-officio member of reconstituted Surat District
Panchayat because he had ceased to be an ex-officio member
as such. He was not an elected member of the Surat
District Panchayat and was rot appointed a member under S.
310A (2) (b) of the Panchayat Act. He, therefore, ceased to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
be a member of the Surat District Panchayat as
reconstituted. This led to the cessation of his holding the
’office of the President of that Panchayat. He filed a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the
validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made
by the Development Commissioner. The High Court allowed the
petition on the ground that by reason of’ the exception
contained in S, 310A(10) of the Panchayats Act. Commissioner
had no power to dissolve the panchayat Sub-s. (i) of that
section. On appeal the question arose provisions of S.
310A(10) would apply to the Municipal which had been
converted into a city with effect from
HELD : (i) The Appellant had no right to dissolve the ’C’
Taluka Panchayat under sub-S. (1) because S. 310A(10) of the
Panchayat Act provides that nothing in the foregoing
provisions of the section shall apply or shall be deemed
ever to have applied to the alteration of the limits of a
district or a taluka by reason of the inclusion in or
exclusion from the district taluka of any area as a result
of the alteration of the
687
limits of a municipal borough or conversion of a municipal
borough into a Gram or Nagar or the establishment of or the
alteration of the limits of a contonement. [693 F]
(ii) The Municipal borough under Sec. 310(10) of the
panchayat Act, would have the meaning of the word ’City’
within the meaning of para 1 of Appendix IV of the
Corporation Act. Therefore when the ’C’ Taluka Panchayat
was included into the Municipal borough of Surat which was
declared as a city, Sub section (1) of Section 310(A) will
have no application. [692 H]
(iii) In the matter of interpretation of enactment which
are in force in a particular state, this Court generally
attaches a good deal of value to the views of the High Court
of that State, particularly, when they have been fully
considered by it, because that Court is expected to be
sufficiently conversant with the provisions of the various
local enactment. [694 G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1971.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 17th 18th
1971 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application
No. 77 of 1971.
M. C. Setalvad and B. D. Sharma, for the Appellant.
B. Sen, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment
of the Gujarat High Court in which the legislation which
came up for interpretation has been characterized by the
High Court as confused and obscure.
The facts may be succinctly stated. In the elections to the
Vyara Taluka Panchayat which took place in 1968 respondent
No. 1 was elected as a member. At the first meeting of the
Taluka Panchayat he was elected as its President. Thereupon
he became ex-officio member of the Surat District Panchayat
by virtue of S. 15(1)(A)(i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act
1961, hereinafter called the ’Panchayats Act’. He was
ultimately elected as President of the Surat District
Panchayat. He ceased to hold his office of President of the
Taluka Panchayat. Surat district consists of several
Talukas; one of such Talukas is called Chorashi Taluka for
which a Taluka Panchayat was constituted under the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
provisions of the Panchayats Act. Two areas known as Rander
and Adajan were subject to the authority of the Surat
District Panchayat and the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat.
Rander had a Nagar Panchayat and Adajan had a Gram
Panchayat. On January 16, 1970 a notification was issued
by the State Government under S. 3 (3) of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporations-Act 1949, to be referred
to as the ’Corporations Act’ by-which the local areas of
Rander and Adajan were included within the limits of the
Surat Municipal Corporation. This was followed by a
notification dated
688
January 21, 1970 under S. 9(2) of the Panchayats Act
declaring that the local area of Rander shall cease to be a
Nagar and that oil Adajan shall cease to be a Gram with
effect from February 1, 1970. The net result was that
Rander and Adajan stood excluded from he limits of the
Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat.
A notification was issued on June 13, 1963 by the
Development Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred
on the State Government under s. 31O(A) of the Panchayats
Act and delegated to him dissolving the Chorashi Taluka
Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat with effect from
January 11, 1971 with a direction that the members of the
dissolved Panchayat shall vacate offices and that the Taluka
and District Panchayats shall be reconstituted with members
specified in clause 3 of the Order-read with Schedules 1 and
2. Respondent No. 1 having ceased to hold office as
President of the Vyara Taluka Panchayat when he was elected
as President of the Surat District Panchayat could not be an
ex-officio member of the reconstituted Surat District
Panchayat because he had ceased to be an ex-officio member
as such. He was not an elected member of the Surat District
Panchayat and was not appointed a member under s.
’310A(2)(b) of the, Panchayats Act. He, therefore, ceased
to be a member of the Surat District Panchayat as
reconstituted. This led to the cessation of his holding the
office of the President of that Panchayat. He filed a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the
validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made
by the Development Commissioner.
Before the High Court two main grounds were taken on behalf
of respondent No. 1. The first was that the Development Com-
missioner as a delegate of the State Government had no power
to dissolve the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat
District Panchayat under S. 310A(1) of the Panchayat Act by
reason of the provisions contained in sub-s. (10) of that
section. The second point was that the order had been made
by the Development Commissioner mala fide. The High Court
decided the first question against the State and held that
by reason of the exception contained in S. 310A(1O) of the
Panchayats Act the Development Commissioner had no power to
dissolve the Panchayat in question under sub-s. (1) of that
section. The second point was not gone into as it was
considered unnecessary to decide it.
There are three enactments the provisions of which will have
to be considered in order to decide the controversy between
the, parties. The first is the Panchayats Act, the second
is the Corporation,-, Act and the third is the Gujarat
Municipalities Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the
’Municipalities Act’. We may first refer to the material
provisions of the Panchayats Act. This Act.
689
according to the preamble, was enacted to consolidate and
amend the law relating to village panchayat and district
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
local boards in the State of Gujarat etc. Section 1
provides :
S. 1 (1) This Act may be called the Gujarat
Panchayats Act, 1961.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of
Gujarat.
(3) This section shall come into force at
once; and all or any of the remaining
provisions of this Act shall come into force
(in respect of such class of Panchayats, in
such district and on such dates as the State
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates
may be appointed in respect of different
districts and different provisions".
By various notifications issued under sub-s. (3) of s. 1 the
provisions of the Panchayats Act were brought into force.
Section 310A did not exist in the Panchayats Act as enacted.
It was subsequently introduced by Gujarat Act 26 of 1962
which came into force on August 18, 1962. By a notification
dated February 7, 1963 under s. 1(3), s. 310A was brought
into force in all the districts of the State of Gujarat
except the district of Dangs. Subsection (1) of s. 310A
provides that when on account of the constitution of a new
district or Taluka under the Land Revenue Code or for any
other reason the limits of a district or a taluka are,
during the term of office of the members of the District
Panchayat or the ’Taluka Panchayat altered the State
Government may by order dissolve such District Panchayat or
Taluka Panchayat from a date specified in the order and
direct reconstitution of the District Panchayat or the
Taluka Panchayat or the establishment of a District
Panchayat or Taluka Panchayat for a new district or a new
taluka which has been constituted. Sub-s. (1) which was not
to be found in the original section was introduced with
retrospective effect by Gujarat Act 7 of 1966. According to
sub-s. (10) nothing in the foregoing provisions of the
section shall apply or shall be deemed ever to have applied
to the alteration of the limits of a district or a taluka by
reason of the inclusion in or exclusion from the district or
taluka of any area as a result of the alteration of the
limits of a municipal borough or conversion of a municipal
borough into a Gram or Nagar or the establishment of or the
alteration of the limits of a cantonment. An Explanation
was added to the sub-section to the following effect
"EXPLANATION.-Municipal borough if means a
municipal borough constituted or deemed to be
constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities
Act, 1963".
690
Section 10 of the Panchayats Act provides for the formation
of districts and talukas for the purpose of that Act.
According to s. 8(2) a Taluka Panchayat or a District
Panchayat shall have no authority over that portion of the
area in the taluka or the district which for the time being
is within the limits of a city, municipal borough, municipal
district, notified area or cantonment.
The Corporations Act was enacted on December 29, 1949.
Section 3 (1) provides that the local areas within the
limits specified by the State Government by notification
shall constitute the city of Ahmedabad. The notification
constituting the city and a municipal corporation thereof
came into force on July 1, 1950. Section 3(2) empowers the
State Government by a notification to constitute any other
local area lying within such limits as are specified to be a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
City. Section 490 provides that the Bombay District
Municipalities Act 1901, the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act
1925 and the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1923 shall cease
to apply except as provided in the Act to any area included
in the city. According to s. 493 the, provisions of
Appendix IV shall apply to the constitution of the
Corporation and other matters specified therein. Para 1 of
Part 1 of that Appendix is in the following terms :
"References in any enactment other than the
Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, the
Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925, and the
Bombay Local Fund Audit Act 1930 in force on
the date immediately preceding the appointed
day in a City or in any rule, order, or
notification made or issued thereunder and in
force on such date in the said City to
municipal districts municipal boroughs,
municipalities or borough municipalities con-
stituted under the Bombay District Municipal
Act 1901 or the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act,
1925, shall, unless a different intention
appears, be construed as references to the
City or to the Corporation of the said City,
as the case may be, and such enactment, rule,
order or notification shall apply to the said
City or Corporation".
The expression "appointed day" is defined by S. 2(2). It
means with reference to any local area the day on which such
area is constituted the city of Ahmedabad or any other city
under S. 3 It may be mentioned that Surat which was
originally a municipal borough was constituted a city with
effect from October 1, 1966 by means of a notification
issued under s. 3(2) of the Corporations Act.
Prior to the enactment of the Municipalities Act there were
in force in the State of Gujarat the Bombay District
Municipalities Act 1901 and the Bombay Municipal Boroughs
Act 1925. The first enactment provided for the constitution
of a municipal district
691
and a municipality for, each such district; the second
enactment provided for the constitution of a municipal
borough and a borough municipality for each such borough.
By s. 279(1) of the Municipalities Act these two statutes
were repealed. Section 279(2) of the aforesaid Act made the
following provisions :
"(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said
Acts,-
(i) any local area declared to be either a
municipal borough or municipal district
immediately before the date on which this Act
comes into force (hereinafter referred to as
"the said date") shall be deemed to be a muni-
cipal borough under this Act;
(ii) the municipalities constituted under the
said Acts immediately before the said date
(hereinafter called the old municipalities")
shall be deemed to be municipalities of the
respective boroughs (hereinafter respectively
called "the new municipalities" and "the new
boroughs");
(iii)................................
As has been pointed out by the High Court if the city of
Surat which was originally a municipal borough constituted
under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 became a
municipal borough under the deeming provisions of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
Municipalities Act there would have been no difficulty in
applying s. 310A (10) and its provisions would-have excluded
the applicability of sub-s. (1) of s. 310A when the limits
of Chorashi Taluka and the Surat district were altered by
reason of Rander and Adajan having been excluded from. the
same and included in the city of Surat as a result of the
notification dated January 16, 1970. But the municipal
borough of Surat had been converted into a city with effect
from October 1, 1966 as noticed before under the provisions
of the Corporations Act. This immediately led to the
question whether the applicability of s. 310A(10) would be
attracted by virtue of s. 493 read with Appendix IV, Para 1
of the Corporations Act.
The approach of the High Court appears to have been that the
word ’district’ in s. 1(3) must me-an a revenue district and
not a district as defined in s. 2(6) of the Panchayats Act.
The opening words of the definition section are " unless the
context otherwise requires". Section 1(2) of the same Act
declares that it extends to the whole of the State of
Gujarat. Sub-section (3) provides that s. 1 shall come into
force at once. It further provides that all or any of the
remaining provisions of the Panchayats Act shall come into
force in respect of such class of panchayats in such
districts and on such dates as the State Government may by
notification appoint. The State Government can appoint
different dates in
692
respect of different districts and different provisions From
this the High Court concluded that the word "district" in S.
1(3) must mean a revenue district. The main reason which
prevailed with the High Court was that the word "district"
in that provision could not be construed to refer to a
district which was yet to be formed under s. 2(6) of the
Panchayats Act particularly when that provision could come
into force only when the notification had been Issued under
s. 1(3). Thus a district under the Panchayats Act could be
formed only if its provisions were brought into force. It
may be useful to give the conclusion of the High Court in
its ,own words :-
"........ how can a notification be issued by
the State Government under section 1 sub-s.
(3) bringing into force the provisions of the
Panchayats Act in a district which can exist
legally as well as conceptually only after the
provisions of the Act are brought into force ?
Section 1 sub-s. (3) applies at a stage prior
to the formation of the district under the
Panchayats Act........"
The High Court also referred to the provisions of s. 9 of
the Panchayats Act and. illustrated how the State Government
could not invoke its provisions for the purpose of declaring
a revenue village or group of revenue villages to be a
Nagar or a Gram. It was only if S. 9 was in force in the
local area comprising such revenue village or group of
revenue villages that the State Government could acting
under that section declare such local area to be a Nagar or
a Gram. Similar would be the case with reference to S. 307
of the Panchayats Act which is to found in Chapter XVI which
makes provisions for conversion of municipality into a
Panchayat and for amalgamation and division of Panchayats.
Section 310A was applied by means of a notification dated
February 7, 1963. The High Court construed the notification
to mean that it was applied to the revenue district of Surat
which would include the municipal borough of Surat. Now
Para 1 of Appendix IV in the Corporation Act lays down that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
reference in any enactment other than the three enactments
mentioned therein which were in force on the date preceding
the appointed day in a city to municipal boroughs etc.
shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as
references to the City. If S. 310A of the Panchayats Act
was in force in the revenue district of Surat it applied to
the municipal borough of Surat prior to that borough
becoming a City with effect from October 1, 1966. The
Panchayats Act was thus in force in the municipal borough of
Surat immediately preceding October 1, 1966 on which date
Surat became a City. It follows that "municipal borough" in
S. 310A(10) of the Panchayats Act would have the meaning of
the word "City".
693
Before us no attempt was made on behalf of the State to
demolish all the steps in the above process of reasoning and
in particular the conclusion of the High Court that s.
310A(10) of the Panchayats Act was applicable to a revenue
district which included the borough of Surat before it
became a city. It was suggested on behalf of the State that
the provisions of the Panchayats Act with the exception of
s. 1 (2) were to be applied in respect of’ such class of
panchayats in such districts and on such dates as the State
Government may by notification appoint. The provisions of
the Panchayats Act could thus be made applicable only in
respect of panchayats. What s. 1(3) however provides is
that the provisions of the Act can be brought into force in
such districts as the State Government may by notification
in the Official Gazette appoint. Indeed the notification
dated February 7, 1963 provided that the provisions of s.
310A shall come into force in all the districts of the State
of Gujarat except the district of Dangs.
The principal argument that has been addressed to us is that
the provisions contained in Appendix IV of the Corporations
Act referred to above clearly employ the language "unless a
different intention appears". A great deal of emphasis has
been laid on the Explanation appearing in s. 310A in which
municipal borough is confined only to a municipal borough
constituted or deemed to be constituted under the
Municipalities Act. The omission of the word "city" from
the Explanation, it is said, is significant and it would be
wholly impermeable to travel beyond the Explanation which
contains the key to the meaning of the word "municipal
borough" as employed in the sub-section. It also shows a
contrary intention which rules out the applicability of Para
1 of Appendix IV of the Corporation Act. It has also been
urged that the words "conversion of a municipal borough into
a Gram or a Nagar" in sub-s. (10) of s. 310A of the
Panchayats Act could not possibly take in a city which would
ordinarily have a population of more than two lakhs. By
reading the word ’city" in place of the word " municipal
borough" by applying Para 1 of Appendix IV of the
Corporations Act the result would be so absurd that it would
be contrary to all, canons of interpretation to do so. It
does appear somewhat unusual that the draftsmen of s. 310A
and in particular sub-s. (10) of that section should have
omitted the word "city" from the principal part of that
subsection. as also the Explanation. But it is equally
possible that the applicability of Appendix IV (Para 1) of
the Corporations Act was kept in view and it was considered
unnecessary to expressly mention the word "city" in s.
310A(10) of the Panchayats Act. The High Court was of the
opinion with regard to the second limb of the argument on
this point that although it would be impossible to conceive
of a situation where a city might be converted into a Gram
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
or a Nagar but that would only mean that no occasion would
arise to invoke the words
694
"conversion of a municipal borough into a Gram or a Nagar".
These words would not be rendered meaningless as they would
continue to apply to a situation where a municipal borough
(within the meaning of the Municipalities Act) and not a
city was converted into a Gram or Nagar. There is a good
deal of force in the following reasoning of the High Court
with regard to the applicability of paragraph 1 of Appendix
IV:
"The principle underlying Paragraph 1 seems to
be that where an enactment was in force in a
local area and applied in relation to it, it
must continue to apply notwithstanding that
the local area is converted from a municipal
borough into a City. Here in the present case
if the local area of Surat had continu
ed to be
a municipal borough which it was when sub-
section (1 0) of section 310A came into force
and the alteration of the limits of Chorashi
Taluka and Surat District had taken place as a
result of the inclusion of Brander and Adajan
in the limits of the Municipal Borough of
Surat, sub-section (10) of section 310A would
have applied, then is there any reason from
the point of view of Section 310A why the
Legislature should have intended that a
different consequence shall ensue if the same
alteration takes place at a time when the
Surat Municipal Borough is converted into the
City of Surat. There is no conceivable reason
why the consequences which would have followed
from the alteration of the limits of the local
area of Surat when it was a Municipal Borough
should not follow when the same alteration
takes place in the limits of the same local
area of Surat after it is constituted into a
City".
After fully considering the contentions raised on behalf of
the State we are not satisfied that there is any such
infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which makes it
erroneous or would justify our taking a different view. It
must,be remembered that in the matter of interpretation of
enactments which are in force in a particular State this
Court generally attaches a good deal of value to the views
of the High Court of that State, particularly when they have
been fully considered by it, because that court is expected
to be sufficiently conversant with the provisions of the
various local enactments.
In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed with
costs
S.C.
Appeal dismissed.
695