Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968

Last Updated on

Supreme Court of India
Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1344, 1968 SCR (3) 433
Author: M Hidayatullah
Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N.
           PETITIONER:
AYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
13/03/1968

BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)
BACHAWAT, R.S.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
HEGDE, K.S.
GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:
 1968 AIR 1344		  1968 SCR  (3) 433
 CITATOR INFO :
 RF	    1989 SC 206	 (6)


ACT:
U.P.  Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads  Adhiniyam,	1961
(33  of 1963), ss. 3, 4, 8 and 8A--Abolition of	 Khands	 and
termination   of  Samities--If	Executive   Government	 has
power--Power   to  terminate--If  excessive   delegation--If
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.



HEADNOTE:
The  appellant was elected Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti	 and
his  term of office which was co-terminus with that  of	 the
Samiti,	 was for five years The Government of Uttar  Pradesh
issued	two  notifications under ss. i and 8  of  the  Uttar
Pradesh	 Kshettra  Samities and	 Zila  Parishads  Adhiniyam,
1961,  by  which  the  rural  areas  in	 the  district	were
redivided  into	 new  Khands,  the  Khand  relating  to	 the
appellant's Samiti was abolished and the term of the  Samiti
was  brought  to a close.  As a consequence,  the  appellant
lost the office of Pramukh of the Samiti.  His writ petition
in   the  High	Court  challenging  the	 notifications	 was
dismissed.
In appeal to this Court it was contended that : (1) The	 two
notifications  are repugnant to the scheme of the  Act;	 (2)
Sections 3 and 8 are contrary to the other provisions of the
Act  under which a Samiti once constituted had	a  corporate
existence  with perpetual succession owning property  and  a
fund, and whose existence for 5 years was contemplated under
the  Act  with the possibility of further  continuance;	 (3)
Sections  3  and  8  were  invalid  because  they   involved
excessive  delegation of legislative functions to the  State
Government,  and  (4) The sections violate Art.	 14  of	 the
Constitution because they furnish an indirect method of	 re-
moving	the  Pramukh, Up-pramukh and members of	 a  Kshettra
Samiti	without resorting to the appropriate  provisions  in
the Act.
HELD  : (1) The notifications flow from an express grant  of
power to the Executive by the Legislature. [438 B]
The  Act was intended to make democracy broad-based  and  to
give  training,	 in the art of	administration	and  running
democracy,  to the rural population.  Its  scheme  indicates
that the area of the district is required to be divided into
many Khands with a Kshettra Samiti in each Khand.  The power
to  create  Khands must be read with the  power	 to  abolish
Khads and create new Khands in their place.  Sections 3,  4,
8 and 8A confer power upon the State Government to alter the
area of the Khand, abolish old Khands, constitute new Khands
and  re-establish old ones; and this power is given  by	 the
Legislature  advisedly, so that the working of democracy  in
the rural areas in Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads	 may
be smooth and without difficulty. [435 D-E; 437 G-H; 538 G]
(2) The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot be said to negative
the other provisions of the Act, which merely indicate	what
a  Kshettra Samiti is required to do as long as	 it  exists.
Perpetual 'succession only means succession of one Samiti to
another,  but  does -not entail perpetual existence  of	 any
Samiti	or any Khand notwithstanding the  inadvisability  of
continuing  it	for administrative or other  valid  reasons.
Similarly,  the	 fact  that the	 Samities  are	required  to
function with right to hold property, to
434
possess	 fund and to carry on administration, does not	show
that the power given by the Act to reconstitute Khands is in
any way impaired or frustrated.	 The first power exists when
the  Samities are established and continue; and	 the  second
comes  into play when the need for the reconstitution  of  a
Khand emerges. [438 B-F]
(3)  The  Act  has  not erred  by  conceding  unfettered  or
uncanalized power to the State Government. [439 D-E]
The  underlying policy and the objective of the	 legislation
is  set out in the preamble and other provisions of the	 Act
and  the Act gives ample indication of what the	 purpose  of
making	a  Khand  is and the duties which  the	Samiti	must
perform.   The	details of how big a Khand should  be,	what
territory it should involve and how many Samities should  be
constituted in each district, etc. cannot be the subject  of
detailed  legislation and they are eminently  matters  which
can  be left to the determination of the Executive which  is
to  act in conformity with the wishes of the  local  people,
the political exigency of the situation and the requirements
of administrative control.  On this subject the	 legislative
will has been expressed in sufficient detail giving guidance
to  the	 State	Government in making  its  notifications  to
implement it [438 G-H; 439 C-E]
State of Bhopal & Ors. v. Champalal & Ors., [1964] 6  S.C.R.
35, followed.
(4) Sections 3 and 8 do not violate Art. 14.  The  provision
in the Act on the subject of removal of members of a  Samiti
and  that  dealing  with the subject  of  reorganisation  of
Khands deal with different powers and cannot be compared  at
all.  One is concerned directly with the removal of Pramukh,
Up-Pramukh  and other members, while the other is  concerned
directly  with the abolition and- reconstitution of  Khands.
It may be that by abolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti
the members, including the Pramukh, must also go; but,	that
is  the	 consequence of the exercise of a  different  power.
If,  however the action in abolishing the Khand is  for	 the
direct	purpose of the removal of a Pramukh, Up	 Pramukh  or
member	of a Samiti, the action of the Executive  Government
can be struck down as mala fide.  In the present case, there
is no evidence of any mala fides. [439 G-H; 440 A-C]
Rani Dial and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1965] 2 S.C.R.	858.
distinguished.



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1805 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
the 20th October 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special
Appeal No. 864 of 1967.

R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Anil Kumar, Shiv Punjan Singh N.
M. Ghatate, for the appellant.

C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment of
a division Bench, October 20, 1967, in a Special Appeal (No.
864 of 1967) of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the
dis-

435

missal of 61 writ petitions by a learned single Judge of the
High Court. This appeal arises from one such petition. The
appellant was elected Pramukh of Sarwan Khera Kshettra
Samiti and his term of office which was co-terminus with the
term of the Samiti, extended to five years. He challenges
in this appeal, (as he did in the High Court), two
Government notifications issued by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and Zila
Parishads Adhiniyam 1961 (Act 33. of 1963). By these
notifications the Government of Uttar Pradesh has redivided
the rural area In the district to which the matter relates
into new Khands specifying the limits and constituents of
their areas and as a consequence has abolished a few khands
and created new Khands in their Place. The Khand relating
to the appellant’s Samiti has been abolished by the first
notification and by the second notification’ the term of the
Samiti has also been brought to a close,. Both the
notifications are of July 1, 1966. The appellant challenges
these notifications as also ss. 3 and 8 of the Act on
various grounds. To understand his contentions we may begin
by setting out how the Act is constructed.

The Act was passed in 1961 for the establishment of Kshettra
Samities and Zila Parishads in Uttar Pradesh. It was
intended to make democracy broad-based and to give training
in the art of administration and running democracy to the
rural population. It is a long Act of 274 sections and 8
schedules. It is not possible to give more than a brief
idea of the constitution of the Samitis and their functions
and Organisation. The preamble of the Act states as follows
“Whereas it is expedient to provide for the
establishment of Kshettra Samitis and Zila
Parishads in the districts of Uttar Pradesh to
undertake certain govermental functions at
Kshettra and district levels respectively in
furtherance of the principle of democratic
decentralisation of governmental functions and
for ensuring proper municipal government in
rural areas, and to correlate the powers and
functions of Gaon Sabhas under the United
Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, with
Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads;”

The Act goes on to define a Kshettra Samiti as a Kshettra
Samiti established under S. 5 of the Act and a Khand as an
area of the district specified as such by the State
Government under s. 3 Chapter II of the Act deals inter alia
with the establishment of Kshettra Samitis and S. 3 provides
as follows
“The State Government shall by notification in
the Gazette divide the rural area of each
district into khands
436
specifying each Khand by a name and the limits
or constituents of its area and may likewise
change the names or make modifications in the
areas and limits of the Khands by including
therein or excluding therefrom areas or create
new Khands.”

This section allows the State Government to divides the
rural area of each district into Khands. It also enables
the Government to change the name of a Kshettra Samiti and
to make modifications in the areas and limits of the Khands
and to create new Khands. Section 4 specifies the effect of
change in Khands and the temporary and permanent
consequences thereof are provided for. Section 5 then deals
with the establishment and incorporation of Kshettra Samitis
for each Khand bearing the name of the Khand for which it is
established. It says inter alia that every Kshettra Samiti
is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common
seal and subject to any restrictions or qualifications
imposed by any other enactments, possesses the power to
acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into
contracts and may by its corporate name sue and be sued.
Section 6 details the composition of Kshettra Samitis
providing for elections and cooptions. Section 7 lays down
the procedure for the election of the Pramukhs and the Up-
Pramukhs of the Kshettra Samitis and its members and s. 9 in
the same way deals with the term of the Pramukhs and the UP-
Pramukhs. Section 10 then enables the Government to arrange
for the constitution of the first Kshettra Samiti for every
Khand and for the reconstitution thereof on the expiry of
the first and each subsequent term or when otherwise
required under the Act having regard to the provisions of s.

6. Sections 11-16 deal with the resignation of Pramukhs, Up-
Pramukhs and members, filling of casual vacancies,
disqualifications for being, chosen or co-opted as members,
disputes as to membership or disqualification and motion of
non-confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and removal of
Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. In this way complete local self-
government is established.

In 1965 by a Sanshodan Adhiniyam, 1965 certain changes were
introduced in the parent Act. In s. 8 a second proviso was
inserted which read:

“Provided further that where the State Govern-
ment is of opinion that it is necessary or
expedient so to do with a view to re-
organisation of Khands, it may by notification
in the Gazette determine the term of all or
any Kshettra Samitis.”

The Amending Act also added section 8A of which the second
sub-section is material for our purpose and may be read
here.

437

“where on account of changes in the areas of
the Khands under section 4, a Khand ceases to
exist, or where under the second proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 8 the term of the
Kshettra Samiti of any Khand is determined,
the Pramukh and the member of the Kshettra
Samiti of such Khand who are members of the
Zila Parishad under clauses (i) and (ii)
respectively of sub-section (1) of Section 18
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
Sections 1 81 and 20, continue to be members
of the Parishad for the residue of the term of
the Parishad.”

When the Kshettra Samitis were formed Khands were estab-
lished and the appellant was the Pramukh of Kshettra Samiti
relating to a Khand called Sarwan Khera. By the impugned
notifications, the Khand and its Kshettra Samiti have been
abolished and the appellant loses the office of Pramukh of
the Kshettra Samiti concerned. He challenged in the High
Court the two notifications as ultra vires and repugnant to
the scheme and the purpose of the Act. He challenged also
ss. 3 and 8 as suffering from excessive delegation of
legislative functions and involving a violation of Art. 14
of the Constitution. These arguments were repelled
concurrently in the High Court and his further allegation
that the action was mala flde was also discountenanced. He
urged the same arguments before us.

Mr. R. K. Garg on behalf of the appellant took us through
the provisions of the Act pointing out that the Samiti once
constituted had a corporate existence with perpetual
succession and it was not possible for the State Government
to destroy a corporation so set up and which owned property
and a fund and whose existence for five years was
contemplated under the Act with possibility of further
continuance. It is not necessary to refer to these sections
because they are to be found in all legislation dealing with
the establishment of corporate local self-Government bodies.
The question is not whether Kshettra Samitis enjoy perpetual
succession. The question is whether the Kshettra Samitis
once established enjoy perpetual existence. The scheme of
the Act clearly indicates that the area of the district is
required to be divided into many Khands with a Kshettra
Samiti in each Khand. Sections 3, 4, 8 and 8A confer power
upon the State Government to alter the area of the Khand ,
constitute new Khands and re-establish old ones. This power
is. given by the legislature advisedly so that the working
of democracy in the rural areas in the Kshettra Samitis and
Zila Parishads may be’ smooth and without difficulty. The
reorganisation of the Khands may become necessary because of
circumstances too numerous to mention here. Power has,
therefore, been reserved to Govern-

438

ment to make the alterations as stated above. It will be
seen that the latter part of s. 3 gives specific power to
create new Khands in addition to the change of areas of the
existing Khands which means that new Khands may be brought
into existence and old Khands abolished. In fact, ss. 4 and
8A and the newly added proviso to section 8 bear upon the
abolition of existing Khands. In other words, what the
State Government did was by, an express grant from the
legislature. The other provisions of the Act to which our
attention was drawn merely indicate what Kshettra Samiti is
required to do as long as the kshettra Samiti exists.
Similarly the term of the Kshettra Samitis is to apply to a
Kshettra Samiti which is not abolished but continues. The
perpetual succession in this context means successions of
one Kshettra Samiti to another but in fact it does not
entail perpetual existence of any Samiti or any Khand
notwithstanding the inadvisability of continuing it for
administrative or other valid reason. The power, exercised
by the Government in issuing the two notifications flow
clearly from the provisions of the law under which
Government was acting.

It is for this reason that the attack of Mr. Garg was next
directed against ss.. 3 and 8 of the Act. He compared the
power to make new Khands and to reorganise the old ones with
the other scheme of the Act under which the Kshettra Samitis
are required to function with right to hold property, to
possess fund and to carry on administration. All this does
not show that the power given by the act to reconstitute
Khands is ‘ any way impaired or frustrated. The two powers
are quite distinct. The first power exists when the Samitis
are established and continue. The second power comes into
play when the need for reconstitution of the Khand emerges.
The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot thus. be said to
negative the other _provisions to which our attention was
drawn.

It was next contended by Mr. Garg that ss. 3 and 8 were in-
valid because they involved excessive delegation of
legislative functions to the State Government and being not
supported by adequate safeguards or guides, most be struck-
down. -This argument is not valid. The Act speaks for
itself and is self-contained. Its policy is stated in clear,
terms and the power to create Khands must be read with the I
power to abolish Khands and create new Khands in their
place. The details of how big a Khand should be, what
territory it should involve and so on and so forth cannot be
the subject of detailed legislation. The Act gives ample
indication of what the purpose of making a Khand is and the
duties which the Kshettra Samitis must perform. On this
subject the legislative will has been sufficiently expressed
and must, therefore, guide the State Government in making
its notifi-

439

cations. This case is analogous to the one reported in
State of Bhopal and others v. Champalal and others(‘). In
that case it was observed that the preamble and long title
of the Act made clear that the enactment was “for the
reclamation and the Development of the land by the
eradication of Kans weed ‘in certain areas in the State.”
The purpose being specified as the radication of kans in
area infested with it, the Act was said to be valid although
the selection of the land was left to the Executive. The
legislative policy behind the provisions of law were held to
be writ large on it, and what remained or was left to the
Executive was -to carry out the mandate and give effect to
the law to achieve the purpose of the Act.

In present case also the underlying policy and the objective
of the legislation is clearly set out and the details of the
duties of the Kshettra Samitis are indicated. It has,
however, been left to :he State Government to determine what
the Khands should be and how many Kshettra Samitis should be
constituted in each district. This is not a subject for
detailed legislation because it s eminently a matter which
can be left to the determination of ‘he Executive which is
to act in conformity with the wishes of ,he local people,
the political exigency of the situation and the requirements
of administrative control. In our opinion, the Act as not
erred by conceding unfettered or uncanalised power to he
State Government as is contended. On the other hand, it has
itself spoken on the relevant subject in full detail so as
to outline its own will which alone the Executive is
supposed to Implement.

It was next contended that ss. 3 and 8 violate Art. 14
because ‘hey furnish an indirect method of removal of the
Pramukh, the Up-Pramukh and the Members of a Kshettra Samiti
without having to take recourse to the provisions for their
removal as laid down in the Act. Reliance in this
connection is placed upon decision of this Court in Ram
Dial and others v. State of Punjab
(2). That case is easily
distinguishable.

There the Punjab Municipalties Act contained two Provisions
for the removal of a member in the public interest. By one
provision he was entitled to a hearing and by ‘he other not.
This Court held that as it was open to choose. one method
rather than the other and that there was room for arbitrary
action. Here the provision on the subject of removal of
members of the Kshettra Samitis are not-congruous with the
subject of reorganisation of Khands. The two provisions
operate In entirely different fields. One is concerned
directly with the removal of the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh and the
members. The other is directly concerned with the abolition
of the Khands and
(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35.

(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 858.

440

reconstitution of different Khands These are two different
powers and cannot be compared at all. It may be that by
abolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti the members also
must go, but that is a consequence of the exercise of quite
a different power. Of course, if the action in abolishing
the Khand could be shown to be directly connected with the
removal of the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or a member of the
Kshettra Samiti the action of the Executive Government can
be struck down as mala fide. It was for this purpose that
the appellant pleaded in the, High Court mala fides on the
part of the Government. The two judgments now under appeal
negative the existence of any mala fide intention. No
material was placed before us to establish mala fides nor
could the findings be attacked since they were concurrently
reached. In this view of the matter we must hold that the
State Government in exercising its powers acted honestly and
within the four corners of its jurisdiction.,
In the result the appeal must be held to be without
substance.It will be dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.

Appeal dismissed.

441

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *