Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 371 (ALL)

Chiraunji Lal Sakya v. State of U. P.

1973-08-30

M.P.MEHROTRA, YASHODA NANDAN

body1973
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is the elected Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Patiyali in the district of Etah. He was elected as such on the 1st June, 1971 for a period of four years as provided by the U. P. Town Areas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A notice dated 16th August, 1973 was issued by the District Magistrate, Etah, convening a meeting of the Town Area Committee on the 31st August, 1973 for consideration of motion of no-confidence tendered against the petitioner. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of madnamus commanding the District Magistrate, Etah and Sri Brijendra Singh, Munsif, Etah, who has been nominated as the Presiding Officer of the meeting, not to convene and hold the proposed meeting scheduled to be held on the 31st August, 1973. There is also a prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Etah to withdraw the notice dated 16th August, 1973 and not to give effect to or act upon the notice of the proposed resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner. Certain other reliefs have also been prayed for which it is not necessary to mention. 2. By means of a notification issued in exercise of powers under Section 38(1) of the Act, Sees. 87-A and 47-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act--hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act have been made applicable to town areas constituted within the State under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 7-A of the Act there is a provision for the removal of the Chairman of a Town Area Committee on the grounds mentioned in Sub-sec. (1) clauses (a) to (c) of that provision. It was contended that the Act does not contemplate the removal of the Chairman except in the manner and the circumstances provided for by that section. He urged that the extension of Section 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act to town areas by the State Government effected the basic policy of the Act, and in as far as Secs. 38(1) and 38(2) permit exercise of such excessive delegated legislative powers they are ultra vires. There is, in our opinion, no force in this contention. He urged that the extension of Section 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act to town areas by the State Government effected the basic policy of the Act, and in as far as Secs. 38(1) and 38(2) permit exercise of such excessive delegated legislative powers they are ultra vires. There is, in our opinion, no force in this contention. As far back in 1957 it was held by a learned single Judge of this Court in Sri Nasir Husain v. The State of U. P., 1957 A. L. J. 345 that Section 38 or the Act by itself is not ultra vires. The validity of the notification issued under Section 38(1) of the Act extending to Secs. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act in a modified form to town areas was also upheld. The validity of the notification mentioned above was also upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Munsif of Etah, 1960 A.L.J. 872. It was held therein that: "The State Government's power to modify and restrict is solely for the purpose of so adapting the enactment as to make its provisions appropriate to the conditions prevailing in the town area to which it is extended." According to the Full Bench decision thus the power of the State Government under Section 38(1) of the Act to extend to any town areas or to any part of a town area any enactment for the time being in force in any municipality with restrictions and modifications is not unlimited. Read thus neither Section 38(1) nor Section 38(2) of the Act can be considered to be provisions permitting delegation of excessive Legislative functions to the State Government. 3. The contention that the extension of Secs. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act to town areas amounts to exercise of excessive legislative powers by a delegate because it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act is, in our opinion, devoid of any merit. The submission that the provisions of Secs. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act as extended to town areas are inconsistent with Section 7-A of the Act has, in our opinion, no substance. Two provisions can be considered to be inconsistent with each other only if they deal with identical matters and if the scope of the two provisions is the same. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act as extended to town areas are inconsistent with Section 7-A of the Act has, in our opinion, no substance. Two provisions can be considered to be inconsistent with each other only if they deal with identical matters and if the scope of the two provisions is the same. Section 7-A of the Act empowers the District Magistrate to remove the Chairman of a town Area Committee either for a fault or because he has became disqualified from being a member of the committee. On the other hand, Secs. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act as extended to town areas provide for a situation where the Chairman may not be guilty of any fault and may not be guilty of any fault and may not have incurred disqualification but has merely lost the majority of the members of the committee. Section 7-A of the Act and Secs. 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act as extended to town areas thus deal with two distinctly situations and thus cannot be held to be inconsistent with each other. 4. For the reasons given above, here is, in our view, no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. The application for interim orders is also rejected.