{"id":259516,"date":"1968-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968"},"modified":"2015-12-05T02:40:15","modified_gmt":"2015-12-04T21:10:15","slug":"ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","title":{"rendered":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1344, 1968 SCR (3) 433<\/div>\n
Author: M Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/03\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nHEGDE, K.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1344\t\t  1968 SCR  (3) 433\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1989 SC 206\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nU.P.  Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads  Adhiniyam,\t1961\n(33  of 1963), ss. 3, 4, 8 and 8A--Abolition of\t Khands\t and\ntermination   of  Samities--If\tExecutive   Government\t has\npower--Power   to  terminate--If  excessive   delegation--If\nviolative of Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was elected Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti\t and\nhis  term of office which was co-terminus with that  of\t the\nSamiti,\t was for five years The Government of Uttar  Pradesh\nissued\ttwo  notifications under ss. i and 8  of  the  Uttar\nPradesh\t Kshettra  Samities and\t Zila  Parishads  Adhiniyam,\n1961,  by  which  the  rural  areas  in\t the  district\twere\nredivided  into\t new  Khands,  the  Khand  relating  to\t the\nappellant's Samiti was abolished and the term of the  Samiti\nwas  brought  to a close.  As a consequence,  the  appellant\nlost the office of Pramukh of the Samiti.  His writ petition\nin   the  High\tCourt  challenging  the\t notifications\t was\ndismissed.\nIn appeal to this Court it was contended that : (1) The\t two\nnotifications  are repugnant to the scheme of the  Act;\t (2)\nSections 3 and 8 are contrary to the other provisions of the\nAct  under which a Samiti once constituted had\ta  corporate\nexistence  with perpetual succession owning property  and  a\nfund, and whose existence for 5 years was contemplated under\nthe  Act  with the possibility of further  continuance;\t (3)\nSections  3  and  8  were  invalid  because  they   involved\nexcessive  delegation of legislative functions to the  State\nGovernment,  and  (4) The sections violate Art.\t 14<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution because they furnish an indirect method of\t re-\nmoving\tthe  Pramukh, Up-pramukh and members of\t a  Kshettra\nSamiti\twithout resorting to the appropriate  provisions  in\nthe Act.\nHELD  : (1) The notifications flow from an express grant  of\npower to the Executive by the Legislature. [438 B]\nThe  Act was intended to make democracy broad-based  and  to\ngive  training,\t in the art of\tadministration\tand  running\ndemocracy,  to the rural population.  Its  scheme  indicates\nthat the area of the district is required to be divided into\nmany Khands with a Kshettra Samiti in each Khand.  The power\nto  create  Khands must be read with the  power\t to  abolish\nKhads and create new Khands in their place.  Sections 3,  4,\n8 and 8A confer power upon the State Government to alter the\narea of the Khand, abolish old Khands, constitute new Khands\nand  re-establish old ones; and this power is given  by\t the\nLegislature  advisedly, so that the working of democracy  in\nthe rural areas in Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads\t may\nbe smooth and without difficulty. [435 D-E; 437 G-H; 538 G]\n(2) The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot be said to negative\nthe other provisions of the Act, which merely indicate\twhat\na  Kshettra Samiti is required to do as long as\t it  exists.\nPerpetual 'succession only means succession of one Samiti to\nanother,  but  does -not entail perpetual existence  of\t any\nSamiti\tor any Khand notwithstanding the  inadvisability  of\ncontinuing  it\tfor administrative or other  valid  reasons.\nSimilarly,  the\t fact  that the\t Samities  are\trequired  to\nfunction with right to hold property, to\n434\npossess\t fund and to carry on administration, does not\tshow\nthat the power given by the Act to reconstitute Khands is in\nany way impaired or frustrated.\t The first power exists when\nthe  Samities are established and continue; and\t the  second\ncomes  into play when the need for the reconstitution  of  a\nKhand emerges. [438 B-F]\n(3)  The  Act  has  not erred  by  conceding  unfettered  or\nuncanalized power to the State Government. [439 D-E]\nThe  underlying policy and the objective of the\t legislation\nis  set out in the preamble and other provisions of the\t Act\nand  the Act gives ample indication of what the\t purpose  of\nmaking\ta  Khand  is and the duties which  the\tSamiti\tmust\nperform.   The\tdetails of how big a Khand should  be,\twhat\nterritory it should involve and how many Samities should  be\nconstituted in each district, etc. cannot be the subject  of\ndetailed  legislation and they are eminently  matters  which\ncan  be left to the determination of the Executive which  is\nto  act in conformity with the wishes of the  local  people,\nthe political exigency of the situation and the requirements\nof administrative control.  On this subject the\t legislative\nwill has been expressed in sufficient detail giving guidance\nto  the\t State\tGovernment in making  its  notifications  to\nimplement it [438 G-H; 439 C-E]\nState of Bhopal & Ors. v. Champalal & Ors<\/a>., [1964] 6  S.C.R.\n35, followed.\n(4) Sections 3 and 8 do not violate Art. 14.<\/a>  The  provision\nin the Act on the subject of removal of members of a  Samiti\nand  that  dealing  with the subject  of  reorganisation  of\nKhands deal with different powers and cannot be compared  at\nall.  One is concerned directly with the removal of Pramukh,\nUp-Pramukh  and other members, while the other is  concerned\ndirectly  with the abolition and- reconstitution of  Khands.\nIt may be that by abolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti\nthe members, including the Pramukh, must also go; but,\tthat\nis  the\t consequence of the exercise of a  different  power.\nIf,  however the action in abolishing the Khand is  for\t the\ndirect\tpurpose of the removal of a Pramukh, Up\t Pramukh  or\nmember\tof a Samiti, the action of the Executive  Government\ncan be struck down as mala fide.  In the present case, there\nis no evidence of any mala fides. [439 G-H; 440 A-C]\nRani Dial and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1965] 2 S.C.R.\t858.\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1805 of 1967.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe 20th October 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special
\nAppeal No. 864 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Anil Kumar, Shiv Punjan Singh N.
\nM. Ghatate, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment  of
\na division Bench, October 20, 1967, in a Special Appeal (No.
\n864  of 1967) of the High Court of Allahabad  affirming\t the
\ndis-\n<\/p>\n
435<\/span><\/p>\n
missal of 61 writ petitions by a learned single Judge of the
\nHigh Court.  This appeal arises from one such petition.\t The
\nappellant  was\telected\t Pramukh of  Sarwan  Khera  Kshettra
\nSamiti and his term of office which was co-terminus with the
\nterm  of the Samiti, extended to five years.  He  challenges
\nin  this  appeal,  (as\the  did\t in  the  High\tCourt),\t two
\nGovernment  notifications issued by the Government of  Uttar
\nPradesh\t under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and\tZila
\nParishads  Adhiniyam  1961  (Act 33.  of  1963).   By  these
\nnotifications the Government of Uttar Pradesh has  redivided
\nthe  rural area In the district to which the matter  relates
\ninto  new Khands specifying the limits and  constituents  of
\ntheir areas and as a consequence has abolished a few  khands
\nand  created new Khands in their Place.\t The Khand  relating
\nto  the appellant’s Samiti has been abolished by  the  first
\nnotification and by the second notification’ the term of the
\nSamiti\thas  also  been\t brought  to  a\t close,.   Both\t the
\nnotifications are of July 1, 1966.  The appellant challenges
\nthese  notifications  as  also ss. 3 and 8  of\tthe  Act  on
\nvarious grounds.  To understand his contentions we may begin
\nby setting  out how the Act is constructed.\n<\/p>\n
The Act was passed in 1961 for the establishment of Kshettra
\nSamities  and  Zila  Parishads in  Uttar  Pradesh.   It\t was
\nintended to make democracy broad-based and to give  training
\nin  the art of administration and running democracy  to\t the
\nrural  population.  It is a long Act of 274 sections  and  8
\nschedules.   It\t is not possible to give more than  a  brief
\nidea of the constitution of the Samitis and their  functions
\nand Organisation.  The preamble of the Act states as follows
\n\t      “Whereas\tit is expedient to provide  for\t the
\n\t      establishment  of\t Kshettra Samitis  and\tZila
\n\t      Parishads in the districts of Uttar Pradesh to
\n\t      undertake\t certain  govermental  functions  at
\n\t      Kshettra\tand district levels respectively  in
\n\t      furtherance  of  the principle  of  democratic
\n\t      decentralisation of governmental functions and
\n\t      for  ensuring proper municipal  government  in
\n\t      rural  areas, and to correlate the powers\t and
\n\t      functions\t of  Gaon Sabhas  under\t the  United
\n\t      Provinces\t  Panchayat  Raj  Act,\t1947,\twith
\n\t      Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads;”\n<\/p>\n
The  Act goes on to define a Kshettra Samiti as\t a  Kshettra
\nSamiti\testablished under S. 5 of the Act and a Khand as  an
\narea  of  the  district\t specified  as\tsuch  by  the  State
\nGovernment under s. 3 Chapter II of the Act deals inter alia
\nwith the establishment of Kshettra Samitis and S. 3 provides
\nas follows
\n\t      “The State Government shall by notification in
\n\t      the  Gazette  divide the rural  area  of\teach
\n\t      district into khands
\n436<\/span>
\n\t      specifying each Khand by a name and the limits
\n\t      or  constituents of its area and may  likewise
\n\t      change the names or make modifications in\t the
\n\t      areas  and limits of the Khands  by  including
\n\t      therein or excluding therefrom areas or create
\n\t      new Khands.”\n<\/p>\n
This  section  allows the State Government  to\tdivides\t the
\nrural  area of each district into Khands.  It  also  enables
\nthe  Government to change the name of a Kshettra Samiti\t and
\nto make modifications in the areas and limits of the  Khands
\nand to create new Khands.  Section 4 specifies the effect of
\nchange\t in   Khands  and  the\t temporary   and   permanent
\nconsequences thereof are provided for.\tSection 5 then deals
\nwith the establishment and incorporation of Kshettra Samitis
\nfor each Khand bearing the name of the Khand for which it is
\nestablished.  It says inter alia that every Kshettra  Samiti
\nis  a body corporate having perpetual succession and  common
\nseal  and  subject  to any  restrictions  or  qualifications
\nimposed\t by  any other enactments, possesses  the  power  to
\nacquire,  hold\tand dispose of property and  to\t enter\tinto
\ncontracts  and\tmay by its corporate name sue and  be  sued.
\nSection\t 6  details  the  composition  of  Kshettra  Samitis
\nproviding for elections and cooptions.\tSection 7 lays\tdown
\nthe  procedure for the election of the Pramukhs and the\t Up-
\nPramukhs of the Kshettra Samitis and its members and s. 9 in
\nthe same way deals with the term of the Pramukhs and the UP-
\nPramukhs.  Section 10 then enables the Government to arrange
\nfor the constitution of the first Kshettra Samiti for  every
\nKhand  and for the reconstitution thereof on the  expiry  of
\nthe  first  and\t each  subsequent  term\t or  when  otherwise
\nrequired under the Act having regard to the provisions of s.\n<\/p>\n
6. Sections 11-16 deal with the resignation of Pramukhs, Up-
\nPramukhs   and\t members,  filling  of\t casual\t  vacancies,
\ndisqualifications for being, chosen or co-opted as  members,
\ndisputes as to membership or disqualification and motion  of
\nnon-confidence\tin  Pramukh  or Up-Pramukh  and\t removal  of
\nPramukh\t or  Up-Pramukh.  In this way complete\tlocal  self-
\ngovernment is established.\n<\/p>\n
In 1965 by a Sanshodan Adhiniyam, 1965 certain changes\twere
\nintroduced in the parent Act.  In s. 8 a second proviso\t was
\ninserted which read:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Provided further that where the State Govern-
\n\t      ment  is\tof opinion that it is  necessary  or
\n\t      expedient\t so  to\t do  with  a  view  to\t re-
\n\t      organisation of Khands, it may by notification
\n\t      in  the Gazette determine the term of  all  or
\n\t      any Kshettra Samitis.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Amending Act<\/a> also added section 8A<\/a> of which the  second
\nsub-section  is\t material for our purpose and  may  be\tread
\nhere.\n<\/p>\n
437<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “where  on account of changes in the areas  of
\n\t      the Khands under section 4<\/a>, a Khand ceases  to
\n\t      exist,  or where under the second\t proviso  to
\n\t      sub-section  (1) of Section 8<\/a> the term of\t the
\n\t      Kshettra\tSamiti of any Khand  is\t determined,
\n\t      the  Pramukh  and the member of  the  Kshettra
\n\t      Samiti  of such Khand who are members  of\t the
\n\t      Zila  Parishad  under  clauses  (i)  and\t(ii)
\n\t      respectively of sub-section (1) of Section  18<\/a>
\n\t      shall,  notwithstanding anything contained  in
\n\t      Sections\t1<\/a> 81<\/a> and 20<\/a>, continue to be  members
\n\t      of the Parishad for the residue of the term of
\n\t      the Parishad.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When  the  Kshettra Samitis were formed Khands\twere  estab-
\nlished and the appellant was the Pramukh of Kshettra  Samiti
\nrelating  to a Khand called Sarwan Khera.  By  the  impugned
\nnotifications,\tthe Khand and its Kshettra Samiti have\tbeen
\nabolished  and the appellant loses the office of Pramukh  of
\nthe  Kshettra Samiti concerned.\t He challenged in  the\tHigh
\nCourt the two notifications as ultra vires and repugnant  to
\nthe  scheme and the purpose of the Act.\t He challenged\talso
\nss.  3\tand  8 as suffering  from  excessive  delegation  of
\nlegislative  functions and involving a violation of Art.  14<\/a>
\nof   the  Constitution.\t  These\t arguments   were   repelled
\nconcurrently  in the High Court and his\t further  allegation
\nthat the action was mala flde was also discountenanced.\t  He
\nurged the same arguments before us.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  R. K. Garg on behalf of the appellant took\t us  through
\nthe provisions of the Act pointing out that the Samiti\tonce
\nconstituted   had  a  corporate\t existence  with   perpetual
\nsuccession and it was not possible for the State  Government
\nto destroy a corporation so set up and which owned  property
\nand   a\t fund  and  whose  existence  for  five\t years\t was
\ncontemplated  under  the  Act with  possibility\t of  further
\ncontinuance.  It is not necessary to refer to these sections
\nbecause they are to be found in all legislation dealing with
\nthe establishment of corporate local self-Government bodies.
\nThe question is not whether Kshettra Samitis enjoy perpetual
\nsuccession.   The question is whether the  Kshettra  Samitis
\nonce  established enjoy perpetual existence.  The scheme  of
\nthe  Act clearly indicates that the area of the district  is
\nrequired  to  be divided into many Khands  with\t a  Kshettra
\nSamiti in each Khand.  Sections 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 8<\/a> and 8A<\/a> confer  power
\nupon  the State Government to alter the area of the Khand  ,
\nconstitute new Khands and re-establish old ones.  This power
\nis.  given by the legislature advisedly so that the  working
\nof democracy in the rural areas in the Kshettra Samitis\t and
\nZila  Parishads may be’ smooth and without difficulty.\t The
\nreorganisation of the Khands may become necessary because of
\ncircumstances  too  numerous to mention\t here.\t Power\thas,
\ntherefore, been reserved to Govern-\n<\/p>\n
438<\/span><\/p>\n
ment  to make the alterations as stated above.\tIt  will  be
\nseen  that the latter part of s. 3<\/a> gives specific  power  to
\ncreate new Khands in addition to the change of areas of\t the
\nexisting  Khands which means that new Khands may be  brought
\ninto existence and old Khands abolished.  In fact, ss. 4<\/a> and
\n8A<\/a>  and the newly added proviso to section 8<\/a> bear  upon\t the
\nabolition  of  existing Khands.\t In other  words,  what\t the
\nState  Government  did\twas by, an express  grant  from\t the
\nlegislature.   The other provisions of the Act to which\t our
\nattention was drawn merely indicate what Kshettra Samiti  is
\nrequired  to  do  as long as  the  kshettra  Samiti  exists.
\nSimilarly the term of the Kshettra Samitis is to apply to  a
\nKshettra  Samiti which is not abolished but continues.\t The
\nperpetual  succession in this context means  successions  of
\none  Kshettra  Samiti  to another but in fact  it  does\t not
\nentail\tperpetual  existence  of any  Samiti  or  any  Khand
\nnotwithstanding\t the  inadvisability of\t continuing  it\t for
\nadministrative or other valid reason.  The power,  exercised
\nby  the\t Government in issuing the  two\t notifications\tflow
\nclearly\t  from\tthe  provisions\t of  the  law  under   which
\nGovernment was acting.\n<\/p>\n
 It is for this reason that the attack of Mr. Garg was\tnext
\ndirected  against ss.. 3 and 8 of the Act.  He compared\t the
\npower to make new Khands and to reorganise the old ones with
\nthe other scheme of the Act under which the Kshettra Samitis
\nare  required  to function with right to hold  property,  to
\npossess fund and to carry on administration.  All this\tdoes
\nnot  show  that the power given by the act  to\treconstitute
\nKhands is ‘ any way impaired or frustrated.  The two  powers
\nare quite distinct.  The first power exists when the Samitis
\nare  established and continue.\tThe second power comes\tinto
\nplay when the need for reconstitution of the Khand  emerges.
\nThe  provisions\t of  ss. 3<\/a> and 8<\/a> cannot\t thus.\tbe  said  to
\nnegative  the other _provisions to which our  attention\t was
\ndrawn.\n<\/p>\n
It was next contended by Mr. Garg that ss. 3<\/a> and 8<\/a> were\t in-
\nvalid\tbecause\t they  involved\t excessive   delegation\t  of
\nlegislative functions to the State Government and being\t not
\nsupported by adequate safeguards or guides, most be  struck-
\ndown.  -This  argument\tis not valid.  The  Act<\/a>\t speaks\t for
\nitself and is self-contained. Its policy is stated in clear,
\nterms and the power to create Khands must be read with the I
\npower  to  abolish  Khands and create new  Khands  in  their
\nplace.\t The  details  of how big a Khand  should  be,\twhat
\nterritory it should involve and so on and so forth cannot be
\nthe  subject of detailed legislation.  The Act<\/a>\tgives  ample
\nindication of what the purpose of making a Khand is and\t the
\nduties\twhich  the Kshettra Samitis must perform.   On\tthis
\nsubject the legislative will has been sufficiently expressed
\nand  must, therefore, guide the State Government  in  making
\nits notifi-\n<\/p>\n
439<\/span><\/p>\n
cations.   This\t case is analogous to the  one\treported  in
\nState  of Bhopal and others v. Champalal and others<\/a>(‘).\t  In
\nthat  case it was observed that the preamble and long  title
\nof  the\t Act  made clear that the  enactment  was  “for\t the
\nreclamation   and  the\tDevelopment  of\t the  land  by\t the
\neradication  of Kans weed ‘in certain areas in\tthe  State.”
\nThe  purpose  being specified as the radication of  kans  in
\narea infested with it, the Act was said to be valid although
\nthe  selection of the land was left to the  Executive.\t The
\nlegislative policy behind the provisions of law were held to
\nbe  writ large on it, and what remained or was left  to\t the
\nExecutive  was -to carry out the mandate and give effect  to
\nthe law to achieve the purpose of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In present case also the underlying policy and the objective
\nof the legislation is clearly set out and the details of the
\nduties\tof  the\t Kshettra Samitis are  indicated.   It\thas,
\nhowever, been left to :he State Government to determine what
\nthe Khands should be and how many Kshettra Samitis should be
\nconstituted  in\t each district.\t This is not a\tsubject\t for
\ndetailed  legislation because it s eminently a matter  which
\ncan  be left to the determination of ‘he Executive which  is
\nto  act in conformity with the wishes of ,he  local  people,
\nthe political exigency of the situation and the requirements
\nof  administrative control.  In our opinion, the Act as\t not
\nerred  by  conceding unfettered or uncanalised power  to  he
\nState Government as is contended.  On the other hand, it has
\nitself\tspoken on the relevant subject in full detail so  as
\nto  outline  its  own  will which  alone  the  Executive  is
\nsupposed to Implement.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t next  contended that ss. 3<\/a> and 8<\/a>  violate  Art.  14<\/a>
\nbecause\t ‘hey furnish an indirect method of removal  of\t the
\nPramukh, the Up-Pramukh and the Members of a Kshettra Samiti
\nwithout having to take recourse to the provisions for  their
\nremoval\t as  laid  down\t in  the  Act.\t Reliance  in\tthis
\nconnection  is\tplaced upon  decision of this Court  in\t Ram
\nDial and others v. State of Punjab<\/a>(2).\tThat case is  easily
\ndistinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
There the Punjab Municipalties Act contained two  Provisions
\nfor the removal of a member in the public interest.  By\t one
\nprovision he was entitled to a hearing and by ‘he other not.
\nThis  Court held that as it was open to choose.\t one  method
\nrather than the other and that there was room for  arbitrary
\naction.\t  Here\tthe provision on the subject of\t removal  of
\nmembers\t of the Kshettra Samitis are not-congruous with\t the
\nsubject\t of  reorganisation of Khands.\tThe  two  provisions
\noperate\t In  entirely different fields.\t  One  is  concerned
\ndirectly with the removal of the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh and the
\nmembers.  The other is directly concerned with the abolition
\nof the Khands and
\n(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 858.\n<\/p>\n
440<\/span><\/p>\n
reconstitution\tof different Khands These are two  different
\npowers\tand  cannot be compared at all.\t It may be  that  by
\nabolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti the members\talso
\nmust go, but that is a consequence of the exercise of  quite
\na  different power.  Of course, if the action in  abolishing
\nthe  Khand could be shown to be directly connected with\t the
\nremoval\t of  the  Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or  a  member  of\t the
\nKshettra  Samiti the action of the Executive Government\t can
\nbe  struck down as mala fide.  It was for this purpose\tthat
\nthe  appellant pleaded in the, High Court mala fides on\t the
\npart of the Government.\t The two judgments now under  appeal
\nnegative  the  existence  of any mala  fide  intention.\t  No
\nmaterial  was placed before us to establish mala  fides\t nor
\ncould the findings be attacked since they were\tconcurrently
\nreached.   In this view of the matter we must hold that\t the
\nState Government in exercising its powers acted honestly and
\nwithin the four corners of its jurisdiction.,
\nIn  the\t result\t the  appeal must  be  held  to\t be  without
\nsubstance.It will be dismissed with costs.
\nV.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
441<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-259516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAyodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\"},\"wordCount\":2600,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\",\"name\":\"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968","datePublished":"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968"},"wordCount":2600,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968","name":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T21:10:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-vs-state-of-u-p-anr-on-13-march-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 March, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259516","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}