Judgment 1. IN this case there are three petitioners. They are voters of the West Bengal Legislative Constituency for the area included in the Bhagirathpur-Bahupara gram Sabha in P. S. Domkol,, in the District of Murshidabad. The Bhagirathpur-Babupara Gram sabha is a constituent Gram Sabha of Bhagirathpur Anchal Panchayat, which consists of ten Gram Sabhas, having been so constituted by a notification dated 9th August, 1963 published in the extraordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette dated 16th August, 1963. The said Bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Sabha has been divided into three constituencies and each of the said constituencies have to elect three members to its Gram Panchayat and the 9 members of the Gram Panchayat have to elect 2 members to the Bhagirathpur Anchal Panchayat. For the election of members for the Gram Panchayat, 11 January, 1964 was the last date for filing nomination papers, 15th January, (1954) was the date fixed for scrutiny thereof, and the 24th February, 1964 was fixed as the date of election. For the election of three members from the constituency No. 1 of the said Bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Sabha, altogether 7 candidates filed nomination papers and the respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were declared elected. For the election of two members by the Bhagirathpur babupara Gram Sabha to the Bhagirathpur Anchal Panchayat, 27th January, 1964 was fixed for the last date of filing nomination papers, 31st January, 1964 was fixed as the date for scrutiny thereof, and 11th March, 1964 way fixed as the date of election. For the election of two members to the Anchal Panchayat there were altogether 10 candidates. The respondent Nos. 7 and were declared elected. 26th March, 1964 was fixed for election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the said Anchal Panchayat. On 24th March, 1964 this rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the said elections mentioned above of the constituency No. 1 of the Gram Panchayat and the Anchal Panchayat should not be set aside and why there should not be an injunction restraining the respondents from holding the election, of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan and for other reliefs. Pending the disposal of the Rule it was ordered that the names of the elected members of the Anchal Panchayat should not be published and that the election of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan should not be held. 2. Pending the disposal of the Rule it was ordered that the names of the elected members of the Anchal Panchayat should not be published and that the election of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan should not be held. 2. IN this application, the validity of various provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1956 (West Bengal Act I of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') have been challenged. Reference will also have to be made to the rules framed under the said Act, known as the West Bengal Panchayat Rules, 1958. Before I proceed, to deal with the legal points taken, I should mention briefly the grievance of the petitioners as made in the petition. According to them, the constituency-wise voters' list was never published at all and the same is inaccurate, because a number of persons belonging to different gram Sabhas have been included in the constituency No, 1 of the Bhagirathpur-Babupara Gram Sabha, whereas a number of persons whose names appear in the West Bengal Assembly Voters' list in the area have not been enlisted in the voters' list prepared for the said Gram Sabha. It is then said that the candidates whose nomination papers have been accepted and who have been elected, are not entitled to stand for election, being defaulters in the payment of Union Board dues. It is said that the Gram Sabha and the Anchal Panchayat have been arbitrarily constituted and its numerical strength fixed arbitrarily. Before specifying the particular objections taken it would be convenient to examine the scheme and content of some of the provisions of the said Act. The said Act came into operation on the 24th January, 1957. The preamble states that it is an Act to establish Panchayats in rural areas of West Bengal and to provide for matters connected therewith. It extends to the whole of West Bengal, except the area to which the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, the Cooch Behar Town Committee Act, 1903, the Cooch Bahar Municipal Act, 1944, the Chandernagore Municipal Act, 1955, and the Cantonments Act, 1924, or any parts or modifications thereof apply or may hero-after be applied. The operative sections of the Act shall come into force on such date or dates and in such area or areas as the State Government may, by notification, appoint, section 3 provides that when the said Act comes into force in any area, the State Government may, fey notification, constitute one or more Gram Sabhas within such area for the purposes of the said Act. In the notification, the State Government shall specify the name and the local limits of the jurisdiction of every gram Sabha. Section 4 provides that on the constitution of a Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas in any area, the enactments specified in column 3 of Schedule i, shall stand repealed or amended in the manner specified in column 4 thereof, from the date of election or appointment of the first Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. From the-Schedule it appears that the whole of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919 would then stand repealed and a substantial part of the Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1883 would stand repealed and/or amended. The other Acts which would stand repealed or amended are the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, the Bengal Village Chowkidari Act, 1871 and the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. Upon the repeal of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919', which created Unions and Union Boards, it would follow that they would cease to exist. All properties, assets and liabilities of Union Committees of Union Boards which ceased to exist would then vest in the Anchal Panchayat or Anchal Panchayats as may be determined by prescribed authority. While section 3 confers powers upon the State Government to constitute Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas, section 5 gives power to alter the limits of any existing Gram Sabha or Gram Sabhas The Slate Government may, after consulting the views of the Gram Sabha or Sabhas concerned, by notification, exclude any area comprised therein or include within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Gram Sabha any area in the vicinity thereof, or divide the area of any Gram Sabha so as to constitute two or more Gram Sabhas, or unite the areas of two or more Gram Sabhas so as to constitute a single Gram Sabha, or otherwise alter or revise the limits of any Gram Sabha. Section 7 provides for membership of Gram Sabha. Section 7 provides for membership of Gram Sabha. As the vires of it has been challenged I set out the provisions thereof, which are as follows:- "7 (1) Every Gram Sabha shall consist of all persons whose names are included in the electoral roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the time being in force pertaining to the area for which the Gram Sabha has been constituted. (2) The prescribed authority shall from time to time maintain a list of the names of the persons referred to in sub-section (1) and such list shall be the list of members of the Gram Sabha." chapter III of the said Act deals with Gram Panchayats. Sec. 11 (1) provides that there shall be a Gram Panchayat for every Gram Sabha. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of sec. 11 have been challenged and it is necessary to set out the provisions thereof, which are as follows:- "11 (1) There shall be a Gram Panchayat for every Gram Sabha. (2) The members of a Gram Sabha shall elect in the manner prescribed from amongst themselves such number of members not being less than nine or more than fifteen as may be determined by the prescribed authority, and the members so elected shall constitute the Gram Panchayat. (3) The prescribed authority may divide the area of a Gram Sabha into such number of constituencies as may be convenient for the purpose of election." 3. CHAPTER IV of the Said Act deals With Anchal panchyats Section 25 provides that the State Government shall establish Anchal Panchayats, each Comprising as many contiguous Gram Sabhas as it may, by notification, fix in each case, In the said notification, the State Government shall specify the names and the territorial limits of cach Anchal Panchayat, Section 26 provides for the constitution of Anchal Panchayats and the relevant provisions are as follows: -"260) Every Anchal Panchayat shall consist of the members elected at such time and. in such manner as may be prescribed from among the members of every Gram Sabha within its jurisdiction by the Gram Panchayat concerned in each case in the ratio of one member for every two hundred and fifty of the members of the Gram Sabha and one additional member if the number of the remaining members of the Gramsabha is not less than one hundred and twenty-five : provided that no member of a Gram Sakha shall be elected to be a member of an Anchal Panchayat if he has any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 15." one of the disqualifications provided in clause (g) of sub--section (1) of section 15 is non-payment of any, tax, toll, fee or rate due from a person under the said Act or under the Village Chowkidari act, 1870, the Bungal Village Chowkidari Act, 1871 or the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919, for the year previous to that for which the election is held. Such disqualification precludes a person from being elected as adhyaksha, or Upadhyaksha or a member of the Gram Panchayat or a member of the Anchal Panchayat of Pradhan or Upapradhan. By sec. 2 (s), the "year" has been defined to mean the year beginning on the 1st day of April the first point taken is that the provisions of sections 3, 7, 11 (1), (2) and (3) and 26 are; violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, being discriminatory and are, therefore, void. Also they are ultra vires as conferring an unlimited and arbitrary power on the executive authority, Including the 'prescribed authority' appointed by Government, and constitute excessive delegation of legislative power and as such are void. Before propounding the objections more fully, I shall briefly state the complaint put forward. Firstly, it is said that under section 3 read with section 4, the State Government may abolish Unions, Union boards, etc., and constitute gram Sabhas, but nothing has been indicated so as to guide the State Government in constituting such Gram Sabhas. An arbitrary and uncontrolled power is given to the executive authority to constitute as many Gram Sabhas as it likes, and arbitrarily fix the area thereof. No principles have been laid down as to what territorial area should be allowed to each Gram Sabha, or what population. An arbitrary and uncontrolled power is given to the executive authority to constitute as many Gram Sabhas as it likes, and arbitrarily fix the area thereof. No principles have been laid down as to what territorial area should be allowed to each Gram Sabha, or what population. Under section 25, Anchal Panchayats are constituted, comprising as many contiguous Gram Sabhas as the Slate Government may fix in each case. 4. THUS, an Anchal Panchayat may consist of several Gram Sabhas and yet the area or the population of one Gram Sabha may not bear any relation to the area and population of any other Gram Sabha, because no principles or restrictions have been laid down in the Act which could control the State Government in constituting a particular Gram Sabha, either as regards the area or the population, or in any other respect. Under section 11 there shall be a Gram Panchayat far every Gram Sabha. Under Sub-section (2) of section 11, the members of a Gram Sabhas shall elect from amongst themselves such number of members not being less than nine or more than fifteen as may be determined by the prescribed authority. The "prescribed authority" may be any person appointed by the State Government. There is no principle laid down, and no norm fixed for guidance of the prescribed authority as to under what circumstances it should prescribe a particular number, between the numbers 9 and 15. It is not laid down whether the number should be fixed according to territorial area or density of population or on what basis. Thus, in two contiguous Gram Sabhas, the number of members of the Gram Panchayats may be arbitrarily fixed in different ways, based on different norms or principles, or none at all. Thus, in one Gram Sabha, it may be based on territorial area and in another upon population. It is dependent upon the whim of the prescribed authority. Under sub-section (3) of section 11 the prescribed authority may divide an area of a Gram Sabha into such number of constituencies "as may be convenient for the purpose of election". Again, it is not stated what kind of convenience is meant. It may be that different principles or norms will be applied for constituting different constituencies in the same Gram Sabha. Again, it is not stated what kind of convenience is meant. It may be that different principles or norms will be applied for constituting different constituencies in the same Gram Sabha. In contrast, when we come to section 26 which deals with the constitution of Anchal Panchayat, the ratio has been fixed. One member may be elected, for every 250 members of a Sabha and one additional member if the number of the remaining members of the gram Sabha is not less than 125. I shall now deal with the question of discrimination. The right of equality is laid down in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution. Article 14 deals with equality before the law. It postulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territories of India. This article corresponds to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which declares that "no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The guarantee of the equal protection of the laws means the protection of equal laws. It forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. Mathematical nicely and perfect equality, are not required. If any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to sustain a classification, the existence of that state of facts must be assumed. Where a statute itself indicates the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply, and where the bases of the classification of such persons or things appear on the face of the statute, or gathered from the surrounding circumstances, known to, or brought to the notice of the court, it has to examine whether there is an intelligible differentia between the persons or things grouped together and those left out of the group and whether such differentia has any nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute-Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, (1) A. I. R. (1951) S. C. 41, State of bombay v. F. N. Balsara, (2) A. I. R. (1951) S. C. 318 and the State of West bengal v. Anwarali Sarkar, (3) A. I. R. (1952) S. C. 75. In the last mentioned case, it was laid down that a particular statute was discriminatory inasmuch as it vested in the executive government an unregulated official discretion. In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S. R. Tandolkar, A. I. R. (1958) S. C. 538 Das, C. J. summarized the law as to discrimination. He placed it under several headings and the relevant headings are as follows: -1. A statute may direct its provisions against a person or persons or things, but no reasonable basis of classification appears on the face of it or is deducible from the surrounding circumstances, or matters of common knowledge. This is a naked discrimination, and will be struck down (Ameerunnessa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, (4) A. I. R. (1953) S. C. 91, Ram Prosad Narain Sahi v. State of Bihar. (5) A. I. R. 1953 S. C. 215. 5. A statute may not make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of the Government to select and classify persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply. In such a case the Court must examine and ascertain if the statute has laid down any principle or policy for the guidance and the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification. If the statute does not lay down any such principle or policy, but delegates arbitrary and uncontrolled power to Government so as to enable it to discriminate between persons or things similarly situate, the Court will strike down both the law as well as executive action taken under it. (See Anwar Ali Sarkar's case (supra), Dwarka Prosad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (6) A.I.R. (1954) S.C. 224 and Dhirendra Kumar Mondal v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs (7) A.I.R. (1954) S.C. 424. 6. A statute may not itself make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of Government to select and classify the persons or things to whom its provisions were to apply, laying down a policy or principle for the guidance of the exercise of such discretion, in the matter of such selection or classification. Such a law must be upheld as constitutional (Kathi Running Rawat v. State of Saurasthra (8) A. I. R. 1952) S. C. 123. Such a law must be upheld as constitutional (Kathi Running Rawat v. State of Saurasthra (8) A. I. R. 1952) S. C. 123. A statute may not make a classification of the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply, but leave it to the discretion of government to select or classify such persons or things according to the policy or the principle laid down by the Statute itself for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of such selection or classification. If the statute does contain such policy or principle then the law must be declared to be constitutional. If Government in making the selection or classification does not proceed on or follow such policy or principle, the executive action but not the statute may be condemned as unconstitutional. Such discretion may be left to highly-placed officials, and provided that it is not merely left to their subjective satisfaction but that a policy may be deduced from the object of the act and the evil to be remedied, the statute should be upheld: (Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, (9) A.I.R. (1957) S. C. 397.)" 7. THE next objection taken to the validity of certain provisions in the said Act is that there has been excessive delegation, of legislative power. The principle of excessive delegation of legislative power has been described by Sinha, C. J., in Mohmed Ali and Ors. v. Union of India, (10) A. I. R. (1964) S. C. 980 at 985 as follows: "it is clear that the mentioned case (Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, A.I.R. (1960) S.C. 554)illustrates the rule that the question whether or not a particular piece of legislation suffers from the vice of excessive delegation must be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances in the background of which the provisions of the statute impugned had been enacted. If, on a review of all the facts and circumstances and of the relevant provisions of the statute, the Court is in a position to say that the legislature had clearly indicated the underlying principle of the legislation and laid down criteria and proper standards but had left the application of those principles and standards, to individual cases in the hands of the executive, it cannot be said that there was excessive delegation of powers by the legislature. On the other hand, if a review of all those facts and circumstances and the provisions of the statute, including the preamble, leaves the court guessing as to the principles and standards, then the delegate has been entrusted not with the mere function of applying the law to individual cases, but with a substantial portion of legislative power itself. " 8. IN the Hamdard Dawakhana case (supra), the provisions of clause (d) of section 3 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (XXI of 1954) was struck down as having conferred uncanalised and uncontrolled power on the executive. In that case, the whole Act had been challenged as having infringed the fundamental rights of a citizen under Art. 19 (1) (a) and (g) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act as a whole, in view of the scope and object of the Act which was not to interfere with the right of freedom of speech but had reference to trade and business. But the Supreme Court held that the words "or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act" in clause (d) of section 3 which empowered the Central Government to add to the list of the diseases falling within the mischief of section 3, suffered from the vice of excessive delegation. The provisions were struck down as the words used were vague, and Parliament had not established any criteria nor laid down any standards nor prescribed any principle on which a particular disease or condition was to be specified in the schedule. As argued before me, it is said that the impugned provisions are defective awing to a combination of the two constitutional defects mentioned above. It is said that the impugned provisions are had because uncontrolled and arbitrary power has been given to the Government or the "prescribed authority", without laying down any criteria or standard; any principle or norm and, therefore, there has been excessive delegation of power to executive authority. Since the power can be arbitrarily exercised, there is likelihood of different kinds of law under differing executive fiats being applied to persons or classes of persons similarly situated, and the impugned provisions are therefore said to be discriminatory and as such void. I shall now proceed to examine the impugned provisions of the said Act, in view of the principles adumbrated above. I shall now proceed to examine the impugned provisions of the said Act, in view of the principles adumbrated above. The first provision of the Act which is under challenge is sec. 3. It confers power upon the State Government who may, by notification, constitute one or more Gram Sabhas, within any area in which the said Act has come into force, for the purposes of the said Act. There is nothing mentioned as to how the Gram Sabhas are to be constituted. It is not known whether it should be on the basis of population or area, or on what basis. Indeed, there is no indication whatsoever as to how the Gram Sabhas are to be constituted, except that it should be done "for the purposes of this Act". It is instituted-"an Act to establish Panchayats in rural areas of West Bengal and to provide for matters connected therewith." The legislative power of the state legislature in enacting the statute is derived from it 5 of List II of the 7th Schedule which runs as follows:- "local Government, that is to say, constitution and power of municipal corporation, improvement Trusts, District Boards, Mining Settlement Authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration." In this connection it would be useful to examine similar provisions in other statutes which had been enacted under the same legislative power. The first statute to be considered is the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919. That was an Act "to develop the system of self-government in the rural areas of Bengal." Under section 5, the State Government was given the power to divide a district or part thereof in which the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919 had come into operation, into as many local areas as may to them seem expedient and to declare several such local areas to be a union for the purpose of that Act. There was, however, one safeguard provided, namely, that the State Government could do so after considering the views of the District Board and the Local Boards. Section 6 was as follows:- "6 (1). The State Government shall, by notification, establish a union board for every union constituted under section 5, and shall fix the number of members of each union board: provided that the number of members of a union board shall not be less than six or more than nine. Section 6 was as follows:- "6 (1). The State Government shall, by notification, establish a union board for every union constituted under section 5, and shall fix the number of members of each union board: provided that the number of members of a union board shall not be less than six or more than nine. (2) The members shall be elected within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under section 101." it will be observed that there is no guidance provided in the Act as to how a District should be divided into unions. Government was entitled to divide a District into as many local areas as it deemed expedient. There was, however, a safeguard namely, that they were to call for the views of the District Board and the Local Boards and to act only after consideration of the same. As regards the fixation of the number of members of a Union Board, the provision was that the number shall not be less than six or more than nine but there is no guidance provided as to on what basis the number was to be fixed. So far as the size of the Unions are concerned, they were always determined by executive fiat. The following extract from a Government circular dated 13-9-1926 is of interest: -"his Excellency in Council considers ' that, tin determining what should be the normal size of a union, area is a more important factor than population. Conditions vary in different districts according to the thickness of the population and the nature of the terrain, but in general the area of a union should not be less than 10 square miles unless the density of the population materially exceeds 1,000 per square mile. His Excellency in Council thinks that a union over 16 square miles in extent would be too large unless it includes large tracts of uninhabited country, e. g., jungle, swamps or char areas. If the population is spread evenly over the whole area a union of that extent must be considered too large for proper administration unless by some fortunate accident the president, the tax-collector and the dafadar all happen to live in the geographical centre of the Union. If the population is spread evenly over the whole area a union of that extent must be considered too large for proper administration unless by some fortunate accident the president, the tax-collector and the dafadar all happen to live in the geographical centre of the Union. His Excellency in Council therefore holds that in no subdivision should the average extent of a union exceed 15 square miles; if this standard is adopted the unions having a larger area than the average would be those containing large uninhabited tracts as described above." I have quoted the above circular as illustrative of the numerous problems that arise before determining the territorial area of an unit of local self-Government like the "gram Sabha". it was impossible for the legislature, at tine time of enacting the statute, to be cognizant of all problems that might arise in constituting each such unit. To that extent, it has to delegate power of determination upon a responsible body, and the body best organized to act as such delegate would be the Government. 9. I next come to the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. This was an Act in consolidate and amend the law relating to municipalities in Bengal. Under section 6 of that Act, the State Government has been given the power to constitute any town, together with any land or building in the vicinity of any such town, a municipality under that Act. It is further given the power to withdraw any municipality from the operation of the Act, to exclude from a municipality any local area, include within a municipality any local area contiguous to the same, to define the limits of any municipality or to alter the number of commissioners of a municipality in consideration inter alia of the increase or decrease in the population, income, number of voters and commercial and general importance of the place. It will thus appear that certain limitations have been placed on the power of the State Government in constituting municipalities or in exercising the powers above mentioned. It will thus appear that certain limitations have been placed on the power of the State Government in constituting municipalities or in exercising the powers above mentioned. For example, a town should not be declared a municipality unless the State government is satisfied that three-fourths of the adult male population of the town are chiefly employed in pursuits other than agriculture and that such a town contains not less than 3003 inhabitants and an average number of not less than 1000 inhabitants pep square mile of the area of such a town. Before a declaration can be made by notification, public notice has to be given and a public proclamation declared by beat of drums. Any inhabitant of the local area or the town or the municipality concerned, has the right to object and the final constitution, abolition or alteration of the limits of a municipality, may only be done after considering such objection. Under section 20, the State Government has the right to divide any municipality into wards for the purpose of the election of the commissioners and to determine the number of commissioners to be elected from each such ward. There is, however, a safes guard because it can only do so after consideration of the views of the commissioner at a meeting where a municipality already exists. Coming back now to the provisions of section 3 of the said Act, it has already been mentioned that in section 3 there is no guidance provided for the purpose of constituting a Gram Sabha. It is further argued that not only is there no principle laid down, but there are no safeguards as provided in other Acts like consultations with local persons or bodies concerned. In my opinion, the objection is not of substance. 10. AS I have stated above, the said Act has been enacted under the legislative head of item 5 of Part II of the 7th Schedule, that is to say, local government. In constituting units for the purpose of carrying out such an object, the problem is such that no legislature at the time of enacting a statute could deal with it completely. The idea behind such an enactment is to confer benefit upon the people, of self-government in local affairs. But the particular problem in each case must necessarily be widely divergent. The idea behind such an enactment is to confer benefit upon the people, of self-government in local affairs. But the particular problem in each case must necessarily be widely divergent. As will appear from the circular set out above, the problem may be one of territorial area or of population. There may be a wide area with a sparse population or there may be a small area with a dense population. The population in any given area may also differ greatly in its composition. For example, there may be an industrial area or an area which is completely agricultural. It is not possible at the time of enacting a statute to deal with all such problems. Where, therefore, delegation has been made to a responsible body like the State Government, it is permissible to leave to it the task of dealing with the local problem upon its own facts. It should be borne in mind that in examining the constitutionality of a statute it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people and the laws it enacts are directed to public benefit which are made manifest by experience and that the elected representatives assembled in a legislature enact laws which they consider to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted. There is a presumption in favour of their constitutionality (See Charinjitlal v. Union of India (1) A.I.R. (1951) S.C. 41; State of Bombay v. F.N. Bulsara (2) A.I.R. (1951) S.C. 318 and Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi (11) A.I.R. (1959) S.C. 492. In Hamdard Dawakhana's case (supra) the constitutionality of the impugned Act as a whole was upheld in view of the scope and object of the Act. Similarly, regard being had to the scope and object of the Act, it was inevitable that in view of the immensely varying circumstances under which units of local self-government are to be determined or constituted, the task of doing so should be left to the discretion of Government. Corning now to the safeguards, i do not think that the said act does not provide any safeguards at all in this respect. An important body under the said Act is the Anchal Panchayat, which in its turn is composed of a number of Gram Panchayats. Corning now to the safeguards, i do not think that the said act does not provide any safeguards at all in this respect. An important body under the said Act is the Anchal Panchayat, which in its turn is composed of a number of Gram Panchayats. Under section 26 of the said Act, the representation to the Anchal Panchayat hay been provided upon a population basis, namely in the ratio of one member for every 250 members of the Gram Sabha. That in itself is a safeguard. If a particular Gram Sabha has got a higher population it secures greater representation in the Anchal Panchayat. Section 5 of the said Act also has some safeguards, because when the area of a Gram Sabha already constituted is going to be disturbed, the views of the Gram Sabha or Sabhas concerned have to be consulted. In course, of argument, section 5 was also included within the constitutionality test. 11. I do not see, however, any defect in section 5. The point is not arguable at all. In my opinion, sections 3 and 5 pass the test of constitutionality. For the time being I shall pass over section 7 as it involves the question of electoral rolls which will have to be dealt with later. I shall now come to section 11. The two sub-sections which are challenged are sub-sections (2) and (3), the provisions whereof have been set out above. Sub-section (2) provides that the members of a Gram Sabha shall elect in the manner prescribed, from amongst themselves, such number of members, not being less than nine and more than fifteen as may be determined by the prescribed authority, and the members so elected shall constitute a Gram Panchayat. The word "prescribed authority" has been defined under section 2 (n) to mean an authority appointed, by notification, for all or any of the purposes of the said Act, by the State Government, either generally or for a particular purpose. Various notifications have been issued from time to time. By notification dated 8th June, 1963 prescribed authorities have been appointed such as "district Panchayat Officer", "inspector of Panchayat" and ''director of Panchayat". Under various sections of the said Act, e. g., sections 6, 22 (1), section 65 and section 67, the prescribed authority is the District Magistrate. Various notifications have been issued from time to time. By notification dated 8th June, 1963 prescribed authorities have been appointed such as "district Panchayat Officer", "inspector of Panchayat" and ''director of Panchayat". Under various sections of the said Act, e. g., sections 6, 22 (1), section 65 and section 67, the prescribed authority is the District Magistrate. The "prescribed authority" under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 11 is the "inspector of Panchayat". Any person can be appointed as the Inspector of Panchayat, no qualification being mentioned. Even upper division clerks in the Collector ate have been appointed as "inspectors of Panchayat". 12. THE first thing to notice is that no guiding principles have been laid down for determining how many members should be appointed for election from a Gram Sabha to the Gram Panchayat, save and except that the number should not be less than nine or more than fifteen as may be determined by the prescribed authority. Rules have been framed regulating the election of members of a Gram Sabha to constitute the Gram Panchayat, but no rule has been laid down for guidance of the "prescribed authority" regarding the fixation of the number of members for a Gram Sabha to be elected to the Gram Panchayat. The result is that a wholly arbitrary power is granted to a person who might be minor official without laying down any guiding principle whatever. The "prescribed authority" who, as I have stated, is often no higher than a clerk in the Collector ate, has absolute power to determine the number, without consulting anybody and there is no appeal against his decision. My attention has been drawn to certain executive instructions stated to have been issued by the Director of Panchayats entitled "instructions to Panchayat Supervisors" dated 20th September, 1957 on the subject of-"fixing number of members and constituencies in Gram Panchayats". It appears from the notification dated 8th june, 1963, mentioned above, that "director of Panchayats" have been appointed as prescribed authority under sections 64)1) (a), 64 (l) (c), 64 (l) (d) and 64 (l) (e. Section 64 is under Chapter X of the said Act and deals with the subject of "control". Section 64 nowhere confers any power on the Director of Panchayats to prescribe rules controlling the powers of the prescribed authority under section 11 (2) or (3. Section 64 nowhere confers any power on the Director of Panchayats to prescribe rules controlling the powers of the prescribed authority under section 11 (2) or (3. The circular attempts at laying down "a ready guide" for fixing (a) the number of members in Gram Panchayats according to population and (b) the number of constituencies into which the Gram Sabhas should generally be divided. A table has been given suggesting the number of constituencies and number of members in a Gram Panchayat, which should be fined population-wise. For example, for a population of up to 750, there should be three constituencies and nine members. For a population of more than 1451 and up to 1500 there should be five constituencies and fifteen members in the Gram Panchayat. It is further suggested that each constituency should generally have a total population round about 300. These instructions cannot possibly affect the legal position. Firstly, the Director of Panchayats has no jurisdiction to issue instructions to the prescribed authority under section 11 (2) and (3) and this particular circular is addressed to "panchayat's supervisors" who do not happen to be the prescribed authority under either of them. On the other hand, it provides support for the view that some sort of rule must be laid down, otherwise, the power given under sub-sections (2) and (3) section 11 becomes wholly arbitrary. The "prescribed authority" under subsection (2) is therefore, not under any legal compulsion to fix the number of members of a Gram Panchayat on a population basis. In fact, he need not do it on any basis at all except his own whims in the matter. He need not consult anybody and his order cannot be questioned in appeal. We have seen that in section 3, the State Government has been given the power to constitute a Gram Sabha but no guiding principles have been laid down. For the reasons mentioned above, this power can be supported because it has been left to the State Government which is a responsible body entrusted with the government of the country. Even in such a case, the power must be linked with the policy or principle as laid down in the statute itself or which may be gathered from the objects for which the statute has been enacted. It will be useful to consider a few authorities on this point. Even in such a case, the power must be linked with the policy or principle as laid down in the statute itself or which may be gathered from the objects for which the statute has been enacted. It will be useful to consider a few authorities on this point. In the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and Anr, (3) A. I. R. (1952)S. C. 75, the validity of the West Bengal v special Courts Act (X of 1950) was challenged. 13. THE Act was instituted as an Act to provide for speedier trial for certain offences and the preamble declared that "it is expedient to provide for speedier trial of certain offences". Section 5 (1) provides that a Special saurashtra (8) A. I. R. (1952) S. C. 123. In that case, the statute concerned was the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949. A special Court was appointed to try certain offences or classes of offences such as may be directed by Government, without specifying the offences or classes of offences which may be so directed. Das, J. said as follows: "the Legislature has left it to the State Government to classify offences or classes of offences or classes of cases for the purpose of the Ordinance, for the State Government is in a better position to judge the needs and exigencies of the State and the court will not likely interfere with the decision of the State Government. If at any time, however, the State Government classifies offences arbitrarily and not on any reasonable basis having a relation to the object of the Act, its action will be either an abuse of its power if it is purposeful or in excess of its powers even if it is done in good faith and in either case the resulting discrimination will encounter the challenge of the Constitution and the Court will strike down not the law which is good but the abuse or misuse or the unconstitutional administration of the law creating or resulting in unconstitutional discrimination. " 14. THE next case to be considered is Harisankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh (12) A. I. R. (1954) S. C. 465. " 14. THE next case to be considered is Harisankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh (12) A. I. R. (1954) S. C. 465. In that case, what was challenged was the Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 1948 which was promulgated by the Central Government under powers conferred by section 3 of the essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ad, 1946. Section 3 of the Order was uphold on the ground that the preamble and the body of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, sufficiently promulgated the legislative policy and the ambit and character of the Act was such that the details of that policy can only be worked out by delegating them to a subordinate authority within the framework of that policy. The power had been conferred on the Textile Commissioner, a highly placed official. On the other hand, in Dwarka Prosad v. State of Utter Pradesh (7) A. I. R. (1954) S. C. 224 it was held that an unrestricted power given to the State Controller under the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1953 wasted. One of the reasons for doing so was that the Government had been given the power to frame rules or given directions to regulate or guide the discretion of the licensing officer but no such rules had been framed nor directions given. In Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (9) A. I. R. (1957) S. C. 397, Section 5 (7a) of the Income Tax Act was declared to be valid because the order was to be made by a high official like the Commissioner of Income Tax or a body like the Central Board of Revenue. Coming now to sub-section (2) of section 11, we find that the duty of determining the number of members of a Gram Sabha which will constitute the Gram Panchayat has been left to the arbitrary power and discretion, not of Government but of the "prescribed authority", which may be a very humble official. No criteria has been laid down and no policy adumbrated. The results may well be visualized. One inspector of Panchayat may take into his head to exercise his discretion in a particular gram Sabha upon a population basis, Another inspector in an adjoining Gram Sabha may do it on the basis of wealth. The same inspector may, in respect of the adjoining Gram Sabhas, fix the number on a different basis. One inspector of Panchayat may take into his head to exercise his discretion in a particular gram Sabha upon a population basis, Another inspector in an adjoining Gram Sabha may do it on the basis of wealth. The same inspector may, in respect of the adjoining Gram Sabhas, fix the number on a different basis. He does not have to consult anybody and there is no appeal from his order. In my opinion, sub-section (2) of section 11 suffers both from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power as well as it is violative of the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and therefore invalid. The position of sub-section (3) of section 11 is similar. According to that provision, the prescribed authority may divide the area of a Gram Sabha into a number of constituencies, but there is only one limiting expression-"as may be convenient for the purpose of election. " If this duty was conferred upon Government or a very high official, it might have been said that there is a safeguard' against an arbitrary use of the power. Placed in the hands of an inspector of Panchayat, there is no safeguard at all. The words ''convenient for the purpose of election" are somewhat vague. Many questions may be asked e. g., convenient for whom or what? An election affects a large number of persons. A Gram Sabha may include a large territory, parts of which may be densely populated and other parts may be sparsely populated. Some areas may be near to election head-quarters and others may be in inaccessible regions and inspectors of Panchayat cannot possibly consider the convenience of all persons concerned. He has neither the resources nor the man-power to consider the convenience of an election from all these various aspects. No policy or criteria has been laid down. But the worst part of it is that he need not consult anybody and there is no appeal against his order. The division into constituencies of a Gram Sabha is of prima importance, because a voter can only vote in his own constituency and for the candidate set; up in that constituency. Here again, there appears to be a gross defect in the Acts and the rules. In sub-section (2) there is provision for fixing the number of members of a Gram Sabha which will constitute the Gram Panchayat. 15. Here again, there appears to be a gross defect in the Acts and the rules. In sub-section (2) there is provision for fixing the number of members of a Gram Sabha which will constitute the Gram Panchayat. 15. THERE is, however, no provision by which the number of members so fixed are to be allocated amongst the different constituencies. As there is no principle laid down of proportional representation, the division into constituencies and allocation of members for each constituency may be of then most arbitrary nature. For example;, one constituency may have a large population but a small number of members representing it. whereas there may be a neighbouring constituency containing a small number of people but with a large number of members representing it. No policy or criteria has been laid down as to how the constituencies are; to be divided, whether on the basis of population or wealth or on what basis. In my opinion, sub-section (3) (of section 11 suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislatives power and is also violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, being discriminatory and is, therefore, invalid. I now come to sections 25 and 26. Under section 25, the State Government shall establish Anchal Panchayats each comprising as many contiguous Gram sabhas as it may fix in each case. Except for the fact that here also reference has been made to the "purpose mentioned in this Act", there is no specific policy or criteria mentioned. So one Anchal pahchayat may consist of only a few Gram Sabhas whereas another may consist of a large number of Gram Sabhas. The same argument has been advanced in this case as in the case of a Gram Sabha. It is said that there is no policy or criteria laid down to guide the State Government in exercising its power of constituting Anchal Panchayats and that this case gives rise or may give rise, to discrimination violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 16. IT is quite true that in section 25 there is no specific criteria or policy mentioned. But, as stated before, the power given to the State Government should be linked with the object and purpose of the Act and thus saved from the vice of excessive delegation or discrimination. 16. IT is quite true that in section 25 there is no specific criteria or policy mentioned. But, as stated before, the power given to the State Government should be linked with the object and purpose of the Act and thus saved from the vice of excessive delegation or discrimination. The purposes for which an Anchal Panchayat is established or a Gram Sabha is constituted, are mentioned not only in the preamble of the Act, but also in the body. Chapter V of the said Act sets out the powers and duties of Gram Panchayats. For example, it has to look to the provision of sanitation, conservancy and drainage ; of the supply of drinking water, maintenance, repair and construction of public streets etc. The powers and duties of Anchal Panchayats are set out in Chapter VI. For example, it has to look after the imposition, assessment and collection of the taxes, rates, tolls or fees enviable under the said Act, the maintenance and control of Dafadars and Chowkidars, the proper constitution and administration of the Nyaya Panchayat and such other duties as may be assigned to it by the State Government. Since the State Government is dealing with the subject of "local self-government" which after all, is a part of its own function, it can be depended upon to decide adequately as to what are the necessities of any particular geographical area and may be depended upon to constitute adequate and viable units which would be suitable for carrying out the functions laid down in the body of the Act, as will be capable of carrying out the objects of the Act and the purpose for which it has been enacted. So far as section 26 is concerned, proportional representation has been introduced, and thus there is no like hood of there being any discrimination. In my opinion, sections 25 and 26 of the said Act are intra vires and do not suffer cither from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power nor are they discriminatory or violative of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. I now come back to section 7 of the said Act. In my opinion, sections 25 and 26 of the said Act are intra vires and do not suffer cither from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power nor are they discriminatory or violative of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. I now come back to section 7 of the said Act. Under its provisions, every Gram Sabha shall consist of all persons whose names are included in the Electoral Roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the time being in force pertaining to the area for which the Gram Sabha has been constituted. The prescribed authority shall from time to time maintain a. list of persons entitled to be a member of the Gram Sabha. The complaints with regard to this section are as follows: Firstly, it is said that the Electoral Roll of the Assembly had been made in 1958 and in any event has not been corrected since 1962. It is stated that such an Electoral Roll would not contain names of all persons residing within the Gram Sabha. In my opinion, this objection cannot be upheld. The right of franchise is not a common-law right. It is a statutory right which is conferred by the particular statute which creates it. Therefore, if the right of franchise is granted to a particular class of persons do not to others there is no constitional defect. The Court cannot do anything about it. (See N. P. Ponnuzwami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal (13) A. I. R. (1952) S. C. 64. There is, however, another point which appears to me to be of some substance. It is stated in sub-section (2) of section 7-that the prescribed authority shall from time to time maintain a list of persons entitled to be members of a Gram Sabha. There is however no provision as to how such a list is to be made out, how it is to be published and there is no provision for any claims or objections in respect thereof. The provision in sub-section (1) is in line with the drift in all elective bodies towards universal adult suffrage. 17. There is however no provision as to how such a list is to be made out, how it is to be published and there is no provision for any claims or objections in respect thereof. The provision in sub-section (1) is in line with the drift in all elective bodies towards universal adult suffrage. 17. SINCE the Assembly elections are based on universal adult suffrage, it is considered to be desirable that instead, of each elective body making up its own electoral roll which is an expensive process, they should all be based on the electoral roll prepared for the West Bengal Legislative assembly for the time being in force. Since however the prescribed authority has been required to main a list of the names of the persons, based on the Assembly list, the preparation and maintenance of such a list calls for an opportunity to be afforded to persons whose names appear therein to prefer claims and objections. Otherwise, the list cannot be corrected and election cannot be held on the basis thereof. These matters might have been provided for in the rules framed under the Act, but there appears to be no specific rules in that respect. Speaking about the rules, an argument has been advanced which must be dealt with. Under sub-section (2) of section 11, the prescribed authority may fix the number of members of a Gram Sabha which will constitute a Gram Panchayat. Under sub-section (3), the prescribed authority may divide the area of a Gram Sabha into a number of constituencies;. Here again there is no express provision contained either in the Act or the rules for giving notice of any such action on the part of the prescribed authority. 18. THIS is particularly noticeable under sub-section (3. The division of a Gram Sabha into constituencies is and serious matter which affects the members vitally. There is however no express provision for giving notice of such division or for inviting objections; thereto. The general complaint in these; Panchayat Act cases is that full advantage is being taken of the short-comings in the Act and the rules, and interested coteries are carrying on operations behind closed doors. It is therefore quite possible for powerful groups: to keep others in complete ignorance' of what is going on. This complaint seems to be fully justified. The general complaint in these; Panchayat Act cases is that full advantage is being taken of the short-comings in the Act and the rules, and interested coteries are carrying on operations behind closed doors. It is therefore quite possible for powerful groups: to keep others in complete ignorance' of what is going on. This complaint seems to be fully justified. It is extraordinary that the rules framed under the Act have not provided for such obvious matters. My attention has been drawn to rule 141 of the Rules framed under the Act which runs as follows : - "141. Application of Union Board Rules in matters not provided in the rules made under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1957.- When there is no specific provision in the rules made under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1957, relating to any matter, the provisions of the existing rules, orders and instructions for Union Boards shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis to Panchayats, provided they are not repugnant to the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1957, and the rules made thereunder." It is clear therefore that reference may be made to the rules applicable to Union Boards. There exists rules for the election of members, Presidents and Vice-Presidents of Union Boards. Rule 7 of such rules deals with the publication of the list of persons qualified to vote for each area of a Union. Rule 7 is in the following terms: "at least one hundred and thirty five days before the date fixed for election a copy of the list of persons qualified to vote in each ward of any union shall be published at a conspicuous place within such ward and also at the office of the Union Board. The list shall be kept displayed at the office of the Union Board during its working hours for thirty days for the purposes of inspection and the fact of publication of the list shall be widely circulated by beat of drum" in my opinion, this rule, mutatis mutandis should be applied to the list prepared and maintained by the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of section 7. Although there is no provision in the said Act or the rules about the publication of the delimitation of a constituency, it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Sri Kashinath Mukherjee affirmed on the 15th June, 1964 that the constituency-wise voters' list in respect of Bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Panchayat had been duly published on the 20th December, 1963 and was kept open for public inspection with the purport of inviting claims and objections. He states as follows : "wide publicity had been given through the President of Bhagirathpur Union Board of the said lists in the office of the Respondent No. 3-Block Development Officer, Domkal. After the publication of such Voters' lists many voters inspected the lists and many applications regarding corrections and commissions etc. of names of voters were received and entertained. The petitioner No. 1-Hitendra Chandra Chowdhury and the petitioner No. 2-availed themselves of the publication notice of such Voters' lists and pursuant to their applications to the Block Development Officer, domkal, dated the 9th January, 1964 and the 5th, February, 1964 respectively, necessary corrections were made to that effect." The said deponent further states as follows : - "the final Assembly Electoral Rolls, for 1963 in respect of the Assembly Constituencies were duly published in the Domkal Thana Office on the 10th September, 1963, and the Rolls were ordered to be kept available for inspection for a period of one month from the date of final publication. This deponent states that the constituency-wise voters' Lists were prepared on the basis of the Assembly Electoral Rolls for the time being in force, which were published on the 10th September, 1963 and kept open for inspection with the purport of inviting claims and objections. No objection has been filed by the petitioners before the Authorities concerned after the publication of the Voters' Lists, many voters inspected the lists and many applications regarding correction, omission and inclusions were received and entertained." I have already mentioned that subsection (1) of section 7 of the said Act provides that all persons whose names are included in the Electoral Roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly for the time being in force pertaining to the area for which Gram Sabha has been constituted, are entitled to be members thereof. Under sub-section (2), the prescribed authority shall from time to time maintain a list of the names of such persons who are entitled to be members of the Gram Sabha. There is however, no provision for the publication of the list in the said Act or the rules made thereunder. Neither is there any provision for entertaining claims and objections. The very fact that in the Gram Sabha concerned it was found expedient to publish the list and to entertain claims and objections shows the necessity of publication and the entertainment of claims and objections. 19. AGAIN, under sub-section (3) of section 11, the prescribed authority may divide the area of a Gram Sabha into a number of constituencies ; but there is no provision for the making of any list constituency-wise or for publication of the same or for entertaining claims and objections. Unless there is such publication and claims and objections are entertained, the elections cannot be made effective. People would not know whether they are in the voters' list and from which constituency they were to vote. This defect is being widely exploited and calls for the making of specific rules without any further delay. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and anr. v. Radhey Shyam Dani (14) A.I.R. (1957) S.C. 304. The facts in that case were briefly as follows: the case concerned the election of the Ajmer Municipality under the Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules, 1955 framed by the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer in exercise of power conferred by section 43 of the Ajmer Marwara Municipalities Regulation, 1925. For being entitled to be a voter, it was enacted that a person's name should be registered in the Electoral Roll for the Parliamentary Constituency comprising the Municipality, and he must be a person who would be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to be so registered. According to the rules prescribed, an electoral roll of the Municipality shall be the same as the final printed roll for the Parliamentary Constituency representing the area covered by the municipality concerned. In pursuance of these rules the Electoral Roll of the parliamentary Constituency was drawn up, but no opportunity was given to any person to put forward any claim or objection. In pursuance of these rules the Electoral Roll of the parliamentary Constituency was drawn up, but no opportunity was given to any person to put forward any claim or objection. Bhagawati, J., said as follows: -"it is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at 'the instance of the parties concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they were defective. " 20. I have already mentioned that neither in the said Act nor in the rules framed thereunder, is there any provision for the publication of the list that is to be maintained under section 7 (2) or for inviting claims or objections. In my opinion, this calls for the application of rule 141 which I have mentioned above. I have already set out rule 7 which deals with the matter of the publication of the list. Rule 8 deals with the matter of claims and objections. In the Union Board Rules, rules 8 and 9 deal with objection to names in the register because under those rules voters have to be registered ward by ward. Rules 8 and 9 run as follows:- "8. Any person whose name does not appear in the register and who claims the right to vote, and any person who considers that any name in the register ought to be omitted, may submit to the Election Officer an application to have his name inserted in, or the name of another person omitted from, the register. Any person whose name does not appear in the register and who claims the right to vote, and any person who considers that any name in the register ought to be omitted, may submit to the Election Officer an application to have his name inserted in, or the name of another person omitted from, the register. All such applications shall state distinctly the grounds of application and shall be made at least one month before the date fixed for election. Applications so submitted shall be enquired into by the Election Officer on a date, not later than a week after the last date for receipt of the applications, to be previously intimated to the persons concerned. The decision of the Election Officer shall be final. 9. The register of voters as amended after the decision of claims and objections under rule 8 shall be the final register of persons entitled to vote at election, and no person whose name does not appear in such register shall De permitted to vote. The final register of voters shall be republished, ward by ward, for a period of three to four days." Since these rules are to be applied mutatis mutandis we have to substitute the word "list" in the place of "register" and the word "ward" by the word "constituency". Since these are the rules to be followed, the publication and preparation of the list as has been made in this case cannot be said to be in strict compliance with the rules. The election took place on the 24th February, 1964. So the publication on the 20th December, 1963 was not in time. They were not published in accordance with the rules mentioned above. It is clear that, either these rules should be followed or rules made under the said Act, for the publication of preliminary Rolls and for hearing claims and objections. Before I come to the next point to be considered, a few facts must be stated. There are three petitioners in this application all of whom state that; they are voters of the West Bengal Legislative assembly Constituency in the area included in the Bhagirathpur-Babupara Gram Sabha, in police station Domkal, in the District of Murshidabad. In the list prepared for election of members of the Bhagirathpur-Babupara gram Panchayat, constituency-wise, the name of only the petitioner no. 1 has been included and not that of the petitioners Nos. In the list prepared for election of members of the Bhagirathpur-Babupara gram Panchayat, constituency-wise, the name of only the petitioner no. 1 has been included and not that of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. This election is confined to constituency No. 1 of the said Gram Sabha. For that constituency, there were altogether seven candidates for three seats and the respondents nos. 4, 5 and 6 were elected. Objections were taken against the candidature of respondents nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that they were defaulters in the payment of Union tax to the Babupara union Board and as such disqualified for standing in the election under section 15 (1) (g) of the Panchayat Act. These objections were overruled. Bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Sabha has been divided into three constituencies with nine members. Three members stood for election from constituency No. 1. Apart from the State of West Bengal, the District Panchayat Officer, the Returning Officer, and the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Berhampur, five persons have been made party respondents. The respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the persons who were successful in the election to the Gram Panchayat. Of these, it is claimed that the respondent No. 4 Suhrid Krishna Chowdhury and the respondent No. 5 B. K. Saha are defaulters and, therefore, disqualified to stand for the election. Nine members of the bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Panchayat elected from the three constituencies, were to elect two members to the Babupara Anchal Panchayat. In the said election of two members, there were 10 candidates and it is stated that two of them, namely, the respondents Nos. 7 and 8, Aparna Prosad Chowdhury and Purnendu Gopal Biswas were defaulters and as such disqualified to stand for election, not having paid their union taxes. It is stated in the petition that the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan was about to be held. There has been an interim injunctions bestraining the respondents from holding the election of Pradhan and Uppradhan pending the disposal of the rule. A point has been taken that his petition is defective for non-joinder of parties, because the other members of the Gram Panchayat and Anchal Panchayat have not been made parties. In my opinion, the point of non-joinder is not of substance. In order to consider this point, it is necessary to understand the nature of the averments made in the petition. In my opinion, the point of non-joinder is not of substance. In order to consider this point, it is necessary to understand the nature of the averments made in the petition. The petitioner No. 1 is admittedly a voter on the roll. So far as the other two petitioners are concerned they say that they are in the Assembly list but as there has not been a proper electoral roll prepared or maintained as required by sub-section (2) of section 7 of the said Act, and as there has been no proper publication of the said list or the constituency-wise list, they have not had an opportunity of putting forward their claims or objections. The three petitioners are primarily interested in the Bhagirathpur Babupara Gram Sabha. This has been divided into three constituencies and the petitioners are interested in the constituency No. 1. In that constituency, three members are elected to the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners are challenging the election of these three members. From this Gram Panchayat two members are to be elected to the Anchal Panchayat and they have challenged the election of these two members. Finally, they have taken the stand that until these elections are properly conducted, the election of the Pradhan and Upa-pradhan should not be held. As to the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan the matter will be considered by me presently. Therefore, the petitioners are complaining firstly against the electoral roll, secondly against the provision in the law fixing the number of members of the Grant Panchayat and are complaining against the absence of publication of electoral rolls and of the division into constituencies. It has been held by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, that in a municipal election a person interested in the election of one ward of the municipality cannot challenge the election in another ward. Upon an analogy, it is doubtful whether the petitioners could challenge the election from other Gram Sabhas or other constituencies than in which they reside. Since they are challenging the election in which they are interested and the matters with which they are concerned, I am unable to hold that the application is bad for non-joinder of parties. Next I come to the point taken, namely, that the respondents Nos. Since they are challenging the election in which they are interested and the matters with which they are concerned, I am unable to hold that the application is bad for non-joinder of parties. Next I come to the point taken, namely, that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were defaulters in payment of union tax to the Babupara Union Board and as such were disqualified to be the candidates for election under section 15 (1) (g) of the said Act. Similarly, it is stated that the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were defaulters in the payment of union tax, and one of them also of the education tax. These are allegations of fact. 21. AN affidavit has been filed disputing these facts. It is obvious that in this jurisdiction these questions of disputed facts cannot be satisfactorily decided. Before leaving this point, however, I have to state something about the law on the point. Section 15 of the said Act lays down certain disqualifications for the election or the appointment of Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or a member of the Gram Panchayat. Subsection (1) (g) as it originally stood provided that no such person shall be qualified to be either elected or appointed, if any tax, toll, feet or rate due from him under the said Act, for the year previous to that, in which the election is held remains unpaid. This provision has now been amended and the amended provision is as follows: -"15 (1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, u person shall not be qualified for being elected or appointed as an Adhyaksha or Upadhaksha or a member of a Gram Panchayat, if- (g) any tax, toll fee or rate due from him under this Act or under the Village Chowkidari Act, 1870, the Bengal Village Chowkidari Act. 1871 or the Village Self-Government Act, 1919, for the year previous to that in which the election is held remains unpaid" the word "year" has been defined in section 2 (s) and means the year beginning on the 1st day of April. 22. IT therefore refers to the financial year. The allegation in the petition is that the relevant dues had not been paid for the Bengali year. It. appears that most Union Boards keep their account according to the Bengali year. 22. IT therefore refers to the financial year. The allegation in the petition is that the relevant dues had not been paid for the Bengali year. It. appears that most Union Boards keep their account according to the Bengali year. Nevertheless, under the law, what will have to be considered is the financial year and where it is alleged that there has been any default, it must be a default for the financial year previous to that in which the election is held. As this point raised some controversy before me I am elucidating the matter, but as regards the charges made in the petition I cannot come to the conclusion as to whether there has been a default or not, because the point involves questions of fact which are strongly disputed, to summarise my findings they are as follows : 1. That the application is not bad for non-joinder of parties. 2. That sections 3, 5, 7, 25 and 26 are intra vires and do not suffer either from the defect of excessive delegation of legislative power or discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. 3. Section 11 (2) and (3) suffers from the defeact of excessive delegation of legislative power and also discrimination and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution Consequently they are invalid. 4. The prescribed authority, in drawing up a list of the names of persons either in the electoral roll of the Gram Sabha or a constituency thereof must publish the same and afford opportunity for claims and objections. As long as specific rules are not made for that purpose the matter will be governed by rules 7, 8 and 9 of the rules made for Union Boards under the provision of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act, 1919, such rules being applied mutatis mutandis. This has not been done in the present case. It follows from the above that this rule must be made absolute and the election of the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 must be set aside. At the present moment, however, I do not think that I should say anything about the election of Pradhan and Upapradhan. It is very difficult to foresee the result of section 11 (2) (3) being declared as invalid. It is possible that the entire elections of the Gram Sabhas and Anchal Panchayats will have to be reviewed. At the present moment, however, I do not think that I should say anything about the election of Pradhan and Upapradhan. It is very difficult to foresee the result of section 11 (2) (3) being declared as invalid. It is possible that the entire elections of the Gram Sabhas and Anchal Panchayats will have to be reviewed. The interim injunction restraining the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan should stand vacated but without prejudice to the petitioners challenging such elections if they are sled contrary to law. There will be no order as to costs. The operation of this order will remain stayed for a period of one month to enable the respondents to file an appeal.