JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - Sec. 9 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down that the normal composition of a municipal board shall be a President and elected members who shall be not less than 10 and not more than 40 as may be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette. Sec. 10 empowers the State Government to vary the normal composition by declaring by notification that a municipal board shall be constituted of nominated members, elected members and a President. The Municipal Board of Naini Tal has throughout been constituted under Sec. 10. Under a notification dated November 29, 1963 (Annexure VI to the counter-affidavit) filed by the Municipal Board) as corrected by the notification dated December 2, 1964 (Annexure VII to the same counter-affidavit), the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was to consist of a President, four nominated members and 11 elected members (out of whom two were to be of the scheduled castes). 2. On May 30, 1971, elections for the Municipal Board of Naini Tal took place and 11 persons were declared elected. On June 7, 1971, the State Government nominated four per-sons to the Board. By a notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated June 8, 1971, the election of the President was fixed for June 22, 1971, Writ Petition No. 4032 of 1971 was then filed on June 17, 1971, by an elected member of the Board and by an elector, challenging the nomination of the four members. An interim order was passed by this Court, directing that the election of the President may take place but that the result shall not be declared. This writ petition was admitted on July 27, 1971, but, on that date the interim order was vacated. On July 29, 1971, Sri Kishan Singh Taragi was declared elected President of the Board. Thereafter the State Government published a notification in the U. P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated August 4, 1971, that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal has been constituted. Thereupon another elected member of the Board, who had. On July 29, 1971, Sri Kishan Singh Taragi was declared elected President of the Board. Thereafter the State Government published a notification in the U. P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated August 4, 1971, that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal has been constituted. Thereupon another elected member of the Board, who had. opposed Sri Taragi in the election for presidentship and had lost, filed Writ Petition No. 5174 of 1971, challenging the election of Sri Taragi on the ground that the nomination of the four members to the Board by the State Government was illegal and that, `consequently the election of the President in which these four persons took part, was also illegal. Thus, in both the writ petitions, the validity of the nomination of the four members to the Board by the State Government is challenged. 3. The validity of the nomination of the four members is challenged on the ground that Sec. 10 of the Act, under which the nominations have been made, offends Art. 14 of the Constitution as it confers as unguided and arbitrary power on the State Government to declare that a municipal board shall not have the normal composition of elected members only as set down in Sec. 9 but shall have a composition of elected as well as nominated members under Sec. 10. It is further urged that Sec. 10(b) makes an excessive delegation of legislative power and is invalid on that account. 4. It is necessary to refer briefly to the legislative history of the Municipal Board of Naini Tal in order to appreciate the special treatment meted out to this Board. The North-Western Provinces and Oudh Municipalities Act, 1900 (U.P. Act 1 of 1900) made provision for the constitution of municipal boards in Secs. 9 and 10. Under Sec. 9, each municipal board was to consist of elected members and nominated members. Sec. 10 empowered the Local Government to exempt municipalities from the operation of the provisions of the Act regarding election. Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 10 provided that the municipalities named in the second schedule shall be deemed to be exempted from the provisions requiring that a certain proportion of the board be elected. The Municipal Board of Naini Tal was included in the second schedule. The result of this was that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal under U.P. Act I of 1900 was a completely nominated Board. The Municipal Board of Naini Tal was included in the second schedule. The result of this was that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal under U.P. Act I of 1900 was a completely nominated Board. The present Act came into force in 1916. Secs. 9 and 10 of this Act made provision for the constitution of municipal boards. As originally enacted, Sec. 9 provided that each board shall ordinarily consist of elected members, a chairman and additional members to be nominated by the State Government. The additional members were either to represent certain classes or were to be nominated in accordance with rules framed by the Local Government. Sec. 10 conferred power on the Local Government to vary the normal composition of a board. Under this section, the board was to consist of nominated members, elected members and a chairman. The Municipal Board of Naini Tal alone was constituted under Sec. 10 and all other municipal boards were constituted under Sec. 9. This state of affairs continued till 1949. The U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1948 (U.P. Act VII of 1949) made a large number of amendments in the, Act. The old Sec. 9 was substituted by a new Sec. 9. Under this new section, the normal composition of a board was to be a President, elected members who were to be not less than 20 and not more than 80 as prescribed by the Government by notification in the Gazette and co-opted members. The old Sec. 10 was also substituted by a new Sec. 10. The new section also empowered the Government to declare by notification that the board shall consist of nominated members, elected members, and a President. A proviso in the following terms was also added :- "Provided that unless the municipality is one which, the Provincial Government are satisfied, is subject to substantial seasonal variation of night population, the provisions of this section shall not be applicable to a municipality which was already constituted under this Act on the day immediately preceding the commencement of the United Provinces Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1948." The Act was again amended by the U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1952 (U.P. Act No. VII of 1953). This Amending Act substituted a new Sec. 9 for the old section. This Amending Act substituted a new Sec. 9 for the old section. It now provided that a board shall consist of a President and elected members who shall be not less that 15 and not more than 50 as the State Government may, by notification in the. official Gazette, specify. In Sec. 10, the only amendment made was that the proviso set out above was substituted by another proviso which reads thus : "Provided that the provisions of this section shall not be applicable to a municipality which was already constituted under this Act on the day immediately preceding the commencement of the U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1952, unless the municipality is one which, the State Government are satisfied, is subject to substantial seasonal variation of night population." By Section 6 of the U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act 1964 (U.P. Act XXVII of 1964), in Sec. 9 for the figures `15' and `50' the figures `10' and `40' respectively were substituted. Various notifications were issued by the State Government by which the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was constituted all through under Sec. 10. The earliest notification issued under the Act was of July 8, 1916, and, under that notification the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was constituted under Sec. 10 with five nominated and five elected members. The next notification was issued on September 3, 1949, which superseded the notification of July 8, 1916, and stated : "The Governor is pleased to declare that the circumstances of the Naini Tal Municipality render inadvisable the application thereto of the provisions of Sec. 9 of the said Act, and to direct that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal shall be constituted of a President seventeen elected members and not more than four nominated members." After the Act was amended by Act VII of 1953, a notification, the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was to consist of a President, four nominated members and 12 elected members, out of whom two xvere from reserved classes. Under this notification, the Municipal Board of Haldwani-cum-Kathgodam was also to be constituted under Sec. 10. Under this notification, the Municipal Board of Haldwani-cum-Kathgodam was also to be constituted under Sec. 10. On November 29, 1963, another notification was issued which reads thus :- "In exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of Sec. 9 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II of 1916), the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to declare that the total number of elected members on the board of each municipality named in column I of the Schedule below shall be as specified in column 2 thereof and the number of seats, if any, out of the total seats to be reserved for the scheduled castes under Sec. 9-A of the said Act shall be as shown in column 3 thereof." In the Schedule to this notification, Naini Tal is mentioned at serial number 19. Against Naini Tal, the number of elected member is shown as 11 and the number of seats reserved for the schedule castes as 2. This notification gave an impression that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was now to be constituted under Sec. 9. In order to remove this impression, another notification was issued on December 2, 1964, making the following correction and certification of the notification of 1963 "After the words, figures and brackets' (U.P. Act No. II of 1916), and the words and figures' in relation to serial numbers 1 to 18 and 20 to 23 of the Schedule below and under Sec. 10 of the said Act and in partial modification of notification No. LB-221/ XI-A dated July 7, 1953 in relation to serial number 19 of the said Schedule." By this correction, Sec. No. 19 of the Schedule to the 1963 notification prescribed the number of elected members under See. 10(b) for the Naini Tal Municipal Board. 5. Before coming to the main question, it is necessary to deal with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that, under the notification dated November 29, 1963, the Municipal Board of Naini Tal had been constituted under Sec. 9 and that, by the notification of 1964, it was re-constituted under Sec. 10. In my opinion, there was no intention on the part of the state Government to constitute the Municipal Board of Naini Tal under Sec. 9 and there was an obvious error in the notification issued in 1963. In my opinion, there was no intention on the part of the state Government to constitute the Municipal Board of Naini Tal under Sec. 9 and there was an obvious error in the notification issued in 1963. In the first place, there was no attempt in this notification either to supersede or modify the earlier notification issued under Sec. 10 in respect of the Municipal Board of Naini Tal. Under Sec. 9 as it stood in 1963, the elected members could not be less than 15 but the 1963 notification mentions the elected member as 11. Eleven elected members could only be specified under Sec. 10 and not under Sec. 9 at that time. The error, which had crept in the 1963 notification, was corrected by the subsequent notification of December 2, 1964. After this correction, there was no ambiguity in the notification and it clearly provided that there shall be 11 elected members of the Naini Tal Municipal Board under Sec. 10(b) of the Act. This precise question was raised before D. S. Mathur, J. in Writ Petition' No. 4141 of 1969 decided on October 20. 1970. After considering the effect of the 1963 and 1964 notifications, D.S. Mathur, J. held that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was not constituted under Sec. 9 but was constituted under Sec. 10. It is, therefore, clear that throughout the period that the Act has been in force, the Municipal Board of Naini Tal has been constituted under Sec. 10. Sec. 9 and 10 as they now stand read thus :- "9.-Except as otherwise provided by Sec. 10, a board shall consist of- (a) a President; and (b) the elected members who shall be not less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, 10. Sec. 9 and 10 as they now stand read thus :- "9.-Except as otherwise provided by Sec. 10, a board shall consist of- (a) a President; and (b) the elected members who shall be not less than 10 and not more than 40 as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, 10. The State Government if satisfied in the case of any municipality that its circumstances render inadvisable the application thereto of the provision 9, declare by notification that the Board shall not withstanding anything contained in this Act, be constituted as follows, namely : (a) such number of members to be nominated by the State Government as may be specified; (b) such number of elected members to be elected in such manner and by such persons or class of persons as may be specified; and (c) the president, who shall possess such qualifications, and be elected in such manner, as the State Government may prescribe : "Provided that the provisions of this section shall not be applicable to a municipality which was already constituted under this Act on the day immediately preceding the commencement of the U.P. Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1952, unless the municipality is one which, the State Government are satisfied, is subject to substantial seasonal variation of night population." 6. There is no doubt that Sec. 9 provides for the normal composition of a board and Sec. 10 confers the power on the State Government to vary the normal composition of a board. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no guiding principle laid down by the Act for exercise of the power by the State Government to vary the normal composition. It is urged that the words "if satisfied in the case of any municipality that its circumstances render inadvisable the application thereto of the provisions of Sec. 9" do not provide any guide line but leave it to the arbitrary discretion of the State Government to apply the provisions of Sec. 10 to any municipal board it likes. It is urged that the words quoted above merely mean that the State Government may, whenever it so likes, constitute a municipal board under Sec. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be sound. It is urged that the words quoted above merely mean that the State Government may, whenever it so likes, constitute a municipal board under Sec. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be sound. An examination of the provisions of Sec. 10 shows that, in respect of municipal boards which had already been constituted before the Amendment Act VII of 1953 came into force, the section does lay down guiding principles for constituting a municipal board under this section. In order to take action under this section, the State Government is required to be satisfied with regard to two things, namely, (i) that the municipality is one which is subject to seasonal variation of night population; and (ii) that the circumstances of the municipality render inadvisable the application of the provisions of Sec. 9 thereto. It is only when the State Government is satisfied as to the existence of these two facts that it can constitute a municipal board under Sec. 10. In my opinion, Sec. 10 itself lays down sufficient guiding principles for the exercise of the power. 7. At the time of his rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no proviso to Sec. 10 on the date when the Constitution came into force as the proviso had been deleted by the U.P. Municipalities (Supplementary and Validation) Act, 1951, from Sec. 10 for the period June 21, 1949, until a new hoard was constituted by general elections after this Act. The argument is that there being no proviso on the date when the Constitution came into force, there was no guiding principle for the exercise of the power under Sec. 10 and, therefore, Sec. 10 became void on that date and could not be revived by the subsequent addition of the proviso by Act VII of 1953. There is no substance in this contention. The Legislature did not intend by the 1951 Act to amend Sec. 10 or any other provision of the Act. It only provided that, for the specified period, the Act shall have effect subject to the adaptations, alterations and modifications mentioned in the schedule. The intention of the Legislature is manifest from the provisions of Sec. 6 of Act VII of 1953 which substitutes in Sec. 10 another proviso for the existing proviso. It only provided that, for the specified period, the Act shall have effect subject to the adaptations, alterations and modifications mentioned in the schedule. The intention of the Legislature is manifest from the provisions of Sec. 6 of Act VII of 1953 which substitutes in Sec. 10 another proviso for the existing proviso. Sec. of Act VII of 1953 indicates that the Legislature thought that there was still existing in the Act a proviso to Sec. 10 in spite of the Act of 1951. The contention, therefore, that there was no proviso in existence on the date when the Constitution came into force is not correct. 8. The discretion to constitute a municipal board either under Sec. 9 or under Sec. 10 has been vested in the highest authority in the State. It must be kept in mind that, under the Act, the State Government has been given very extensive powers of control over municipalities and municipal boards. It has the power to create a municipality and to annihilate it; it can remove the President and members of a Municipal Board; it has power to supersede a municipal board; it conducts the elections to the municipal boards declares the results and constitutes the boards; it can compel a municipal board to perform its duties; it has the power to reject, sanction or modify the proposals of a municipal board to levy taxes; and the bye-laws made by a municipal board require confirmation by the State Government before they can take effect. When the discretion has been vested in such a high authority and that authority already has such vast powers of control over the municipal boards, it cannot be assumed that that authority will exercise the discretion vested in it arbitrarily. The past history of the Municipal Board of Naini Tal shows that from 1900 to 1916 it had a wholly nominated board and since 1916 a partly nominated and partly elected board. It, there-fore, cannot be said that, in issuing the two notifications dated November 29, 1963 and December 2, 1964, and again constituting the Board under Sec. 10, the State Government has exercised its discretion arbitrarily. 9. We may now consider the attack of the petitioners on the validity of Sec. 10(b). It, there-fore, cannot be said that, in issuing the two notifications dated November 29, 1963 and December 2, 1964, and again constituting the Board under Sec. 10, the State Government has exercised its discretion arbitrarily. 9. We may now consider the attack of the petitioners on the validity of Sec. 10(b). It is true that this sub-section confers a discretion on the State Government to specify the persons or class of persons who will elect the elected members of the board. Sec. 12-A of the Act provides that, except as provided in Sec. 10, the election of the members of a board shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. It thus appears from reading Sec. 10(b) and 12-A together, that a discretion has been vested in the State Government to hold the elections to the municipalities constituted under Sec. 10 otherwise than on the basis of adult suffrage. Again, the discretion has been vested in a very high authority and there is no complaint that the election of the elected members of the Municipal Board of Naini Tal was not held on the basis of adult suffrage. The complaint of the petitioners in these two petitions relates only to the nominated members and not to the election of elected members. Petitioner No. 1 in writ Petition No. 4032 of 1971 and the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 5174 of 1971 are both members who have been elected under Sec. 10 (b). Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 4032 of 1971 has voted for the election of members under Sec. 10 (b). It does not he in the month of these petitioners to challenge the validity of Sec. 10(b). Even if the petitioners' contention be accepted as sound, only the words "and by such persons or class of persons" in Sec. 10(b) will be struck down but that will affect neither the remaining part of Sec. 10(b) nor Sec. 10 as a whole. The petitioners' attack on section 10 (b) must fail. 10. It was lastly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if Sec. 10 is valid, the State Government has discriminated against the petitioners and the Municipality of Naini Tal by applying the provisions of Sec. 10 to Naini Tal and not to other municipalities which are similarly situated. The petitioners' attack on section 10 (b) must fail. 10. It was lastly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even if Sec. 10 is valid, the State Government has discriminated against the petitioners and the Municipality of Naini Tal by applying the provisions of Sec. 10 to Naini Tal and not to other municipalities which are similarly situated. In the Writ petitions, it has not been asserted, and it could not be seriously asserted, that there is no substantial seasonal variation of the night population of Naini Tal. It is manifest that there is such a variabon in Naini Tal. Therefore, the State Government was competent to constitute its municipal board under Sec. 10. It was contended that there are many other municipalities which have substantial seasonal variation of the night population but which have not been constituted under Sec. 10. Assuming that to be so, this will not render invalid the notification in respect of the Municipal Board of Naini Tal which has been made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10. Apparently, the State Government was not satisfied that the circumstances of the other municipalities were also such as rendered the application of the provisions of Sec. 9 inadvisable to them. Further, the fact that the Municipalities of Naini Tal, which falls within the mischief of Sec. 10, has been constituted under that section does not result in hostile discrimination against the Municipality or its residents, even if other municipalities similarly situated are not constituted under Sec. 10. There is no doubt that the Municipality of Naini Tal has been dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that Sec. 10 is valid and that the Municipal Board of Naini Tal has been properly and legally constituted thereunder. The impugned notifications issued under Sec. 10; the nomination of the four members to the Municipal Board of Naini Tal and the election of the President, in which these four nominated members took part, must all be held to be valid. 12. The Writ petitions are dismissed with costs.