Rais Ahmad Ansari v. State of U. P — 1991 DIGILAW 1497 (ALL)

JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - These three petitions relate to a motion of non-confidence in the Chairman of the Town Area Committee Wazirganj, district Budaun, which had been tabled by the members of the Committee and was to he considered in the meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on 24th October, 1990. Since the controversy involved in these petitions is interconnected, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rais Ahmad Ansari, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25306 of 1990 was elected as chairman of the Town Area concerned directly by the electors and he took oath of office on 29th November, 1988. By U. P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 certain amendments were made, inter alia, in the U. P. Municipalities Act. In particular, we are concerned with the amendment made in Section 87-A. 3. In the purported exercise of powers under Section 38 of the U.P. Town Areas Act the Governor by a notification, dated 12th March, 1990, in supersession of an earlier notification, dated 6th June, 1977, extended Section 87-A and Section 47-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act to the Town Areas, with the result that the provisions of Section 87-A as amended by (J.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 were extended to all Town Areas. The said Ordinance was followed by U. P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1990. The U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1990 has been replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990. On 24th October, 1990 a meeting of the Town Area Committee was scheduled to be held to consider a motion of non-confidence in the petitioner. On 23rd October, 1990, we passed an interim order, the operative portion of which runs : "Meanwhile, the motion of no-confidence will be put to vote and the result there of declared but effect shall not be given to the same if the motion is deemed to be carried." 4. The first argument advanced in support of Writ Petition No. 25306 of 1990 is that the Notification, dated 12th March, 1990, aforementioned lapsed upon the lapsed of the U. P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990. The first argument advanced in support of Writ Petition No. 25306 of 1990 is that the Notification, dated 12th March, 1990, aforementioned lapsed upon the lapsed of the U. P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990. No other notification having been issued either after the promulgation of the U. P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1990 or after the enforcement of the U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990, the provisions of Section 47-A and 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. as extended to the Town Areas by the Notification, dated 12th March, 1990, could not be applied to them (Town Areas) either on 30th September, 1990, when a notice to move a motion of non-confidence in the petitioner was given or on 24th October, 1990, when the motion was to be considered in the meeting. 5. Section 38 of the U. P. Town Areas Act provides, inter alia, that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette extent to all town areas or to any town area or to any part of a town area any enactment for the time being in force in any municipality in Utter Pradesh. Indisputably on 12th March, 1990, Sections 47-A and 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act as amended by Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 were in force in the municipalities in the State. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 clearly permits legislation by incorporation. Upon the publication of the notification under Section 38, Section 47-A and 87-A, as they stood on the date of the notification, stood incorporated in the U.P. Town Areas Act and they became part of that Act. Any repeal or amendment or modification of Sections 47-A and 87-A in the U. P. Municipalities Act would have no consequence at all so long as the said provisions continue to be the parts of the U. P. Town Areas Act. Reliance is placed by the petitioners upon a judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 3895 of 1976, decided on 15th December, 1976. This judgment is really against the petitioner. It accepts the proposition that an enactment once incorporated into another enactment will continue to operate in spite of the repeal, modification or supersession of the incorporated provision in the earlier enactment. This judgment is really against the petitioner. It accepts the proposition that an enactment once incorporated into another enactment will continue to operate in spite of the repeal, modification or supersession of the incorporated provision in the earlier enactment. We, therefore, repel the argument of the petitioner that Section 87-A, as extended to the Town Areas, ceased to apply on the date when the motion of non-confidence in the petitioner was put to vote. It follows that such a motion could be brought against the petitioner after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of his election. The other amendments introduced by the Ordinances and thereafter replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1990 cannot be challenged by the petitioner as none of his rights are affected by them. It appears from a perusal of the other two petitions that the motion of non-confidence had been carried as against the petitioner but on account of the interim order passed by this Court on 23rd October, 1990, effect has not been given to the same so far. 6. Apart from merits, since the motion of non-confidence has been passed as against the petitioner, we do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The District Magistrate shall now given immediate effect to the motion of non-confidence and to the resolution of the Town Area Committee concerned whereby it expressed non-confidence in the petitioner. 7. In Writ Petition No. 28590 of 1990 the prayer is that Sri Rais Ahmad Ansari, the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, may be restrained from either dealing in financial matter or dealing with any immovable property of the Town Area Committee. In that writ petition an interim order was passed by this Court on 9-11-1990. Since the writ petition of Rais Ahmad Ansari is being dismissed, writ petition No. 28590 of 1990 has become in-fructuous. 8. In Writ Petition No. 1426 of 1991 the prayer is that Rais Ahmad Ansari may be directed to hand over the charge of the office of the Chairman to any other member of the Town Area Committee. This writ petition to has to be dismissed as having become in-fructuous in view' of the fact that writ petition No. 25306 of 1990 is being dismissed. 9. This writ petition to has to be dismissed as having become in-fructuous in view' of the fact that writ petition No. 25306 of 1990 is being dismissed. 9. All the three writ petitions are dismissed ; but without any order as to costs.