JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. Petitioner claims to be an Editor of a newspaper. He has approached this Court invoking the public interest jurisdiction seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue writ order or direction declaring UP Urban Planning and Development Act 1973, UP Special Area Development Act, UP Regulation of Building Operation Act 1958 stood repealed w.e.f. 11.06.1994 on the expiry of one year from the date of commencement of 73rd and 74th amendment in the Constitution of India or alternatively:- (i) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent, restoring the relevant provision of UP Municipalities Act 1916, UP Municipal Corporation Act 1959, UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947 and Zila Panchayat Act which were put under suspension by virtue of section 3 and 59 of the UP Regulation of Building Operation Act 1958 and UP Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 respectively as stood reversed by Constitution’s 73rd & 74th amendment. (ii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to constitute District Planning Committees in each district as per Article 243 ZD of the Constitution of India. (iii) To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to constitute finance commission as per Articles 243 I and 243 Y of the Constitution of India.” 2. It is his case that the U.P. Municipalities Act was enacted in the year 1916 and Sections 178, 179, 180, 180-A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 222 control urban planning and development within the municipal area. The U.P. Municipal Corporation Act was enacted in the year 1959 and Sections 5(c), 54 to 56, 114(xxxii), 117(3), 119, 316, 317 to 329, (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 334, Sections 335 and 336 deal with urban planning and development within the boundaries of Nagar Mahapalika / Municipal Corporation. In the same manner, Chapter IV of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, read with Chapter III of the U.P. Kshetriya and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, read with Schedule thereof, deals with the powers of the Gram Kshetra Panchayat pertaining to the rule, planning and development. 3. Prior to the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Act”) was enacted. 3. Prior to the bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “1958 Act”) was enacted. Section 3 of the 1958 Act provides as follows: “Section 3:- Declaration of Regulated Area- (1) If in the opinion of the State Government any area within U.P. requires to be regulated under this Act with a view to the prevention of bad laying out of land, haphazard erection of buildings or growth of sub-standard colonies or with a view to the development and expansion of that area according to proper planning, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the area to be regulated area. (2) The operation of Chapter XIII of the UP Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 (Sections 178, 179, 180, 180-A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 222 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (or the said sections as extended under Section 338 thereof or under Section 38 of the U.P. Town Area Act 1914) Sections 29, 30 and 32 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act 1919 or, as the case may be, of Sections 162 to 171 of the UP Kshetriya Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, shall in respect of a regulated area remain suspended for the period during which the declaration relating to it under sub-section (1) remains in force and the provision of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply in relation to such suspension as if the suspension amounted to repeal of the said enactments by this Act.” 4. Thereafter, the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “1973 Act”) was enacted. The purported reason for the enactment is given as follows: “In the developing areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the problems of town planning and urban development need to be tackled resolutely. The existing local bodies and other authorities inspite of their best efforts have not been able to cope with these problems to the desired extent. In order to bring about improvement in this situation, the State Government considered it advisable that in such developing areas, Development Authorities patterned on the Delhi Development Authority be established. The existing local bodies and other authorities inspite of their best efforts have not been able to cope with these problems to the desired extent. In order to bring about improvement in this situation, the State Government considered it advisable that in such developing areas, Development Authorities patterned on the Delhi Development Authority be established. As the State Government was of the view that the urban development and planning work in the State had already been delayed, it was felt necessary to provide for early establishment of such Authorities.” 5. Reference is further made to Section 59 of the 1973 Act. It provides as follows: “59. Repeal etc. As the State Government was of the view that the urban development and planning work in the State had already been delayed, it was felt necessary to provide for early establishment of such Authorities.” 5. Reference is further made to Section 59 of the 1973 Act. It provides as follows: “59. Repeal etc. and Savings:- (1) (a) The operation of Clause (c) of Section 5, Sections 54, 55 and 56, Clause (xxxiii) of Section 114, Sub-section (3) of Section 117, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 119, Section 191, Sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 333, Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 334, Sections 335, 336, Chapter XIV of the Uttar Pradesh U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 Sections 178, 179, 180, 180-A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 222 of the (U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916) (or the said sections as extended under Section 338 thereof or under Section 38 of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914), or as the case may be, of Sections 162 to 171 of the (U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Operations Act 1958 and Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, (except in relation to those housing or improvement schemes which have either been notified under Section 32 of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 before the declaration of the area comprised therein as development area or which having been notified under Section 28 of the said Adhiniyam before the declarations are bye- thereafter approved by the State Government for continuance under the said Adhiniyam or which are initiated after such declaration with the approval of the State Government, hereinafter in this section referred to as Special Avas Parishad Schemes) shall in respect of a development area remain suspended and Sub-section (3) of Section 139 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 shall have effect as if the requirement as to constitution of a Development Fund were suspended with effect from the date of constitution of the Authority for that area and until the dissolution of such Authority and the provisions of Sections 6 and 24 of the United Provinces General Clauses Act 1904 shall apply, in relation to such suspension as if the suspension amounted to repeal of the said enactment by this Act, and in particular, all proceedings relating to acquisition of land and interest in land for Improvement schemes under the said enactment pending immediately before such suspension before any court, tribunal or authority may be continued and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the said enactment (which shall mutatis mutandis apply) as if those provisions were not suspended and the powers for doing anything which could but for such suspension of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, be done by the Prescribed Authority and controlling authority and which can, after such suspension be done by virtue of the application of Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904, shall vest in the Vice-Chairman and the Chairman respectively). (b) The operation of the provisions suspended by virtue of Clause (a) shall revive upon the dissolution of the Authority under Section 58, the provisions of (Sections 6 and 24 of the United Provinces General Clauses Act, 1904) shall apply in relation to the cesser of application of the corresponding provisions of this Act as if such cesser amounted to a repeal of these provisions of this Act by an Uttar Pradesh Act. (c) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b), and bye-laws, directions or regulations under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 or the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 as the case may be, and in force on the date immediately before the date of commencement of this Act, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force, until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority under this Act. (2) Where any area for which an Improvement Trust constituted under the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919 is in existence is declared to be a development area under Section 3, the said Act as well as the Uttar Pradesh local Bodies (Appointment of Administrator) Act, 1961, if applicable, shall in relation to such area, stand repealed as from the date of the constitution of the Development Authority for that area, and the Improvement Trust shall as from that date stand dissolved.” 6. Thereafter, petitioner invokes the 73rd and 74th Amendments carried out to the Constitution of India, wherein the object is stated to be as follows: “In many states, Local bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular election, prolong supersessions and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a result, local bodies are not able to perform effective as vibrant, democratic units of self Government. Having regard to these inadequates, it is considered necessary that provisions relating to local bodies are incorporated in the Constitution particularly for:- (i) Putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the local bodies with respect to:- (a) the functions and taxation powers, and (b) arrangements for revenue sharing. Having regard to these inadequates, it is considered necessary that provisions relating to local bodies are incorporated in the Constitution particularly for:- (i) Putting on a firmer footing the relationship between the State Government and the local bodies with respect to:- (a) the functions and taxation powers, and (b) arrangements for revenue sharing. (ii) Ensuring regular conduct of elections; (iii) Ensuring timely elections in the case of supersession; and (iv) Providing adequate representation for the weaker sections like the schedule castes, schedule tribes and woman.” 7. Further, petitioner refers to Articles 243-H and 243-I of the Constitution of India to contend that they empowered the State to authorise the Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees, which are being collected by the State and that there would be a Finance Commission to review the financial position of the Panchayats. Petitioner also, more importantly, invokes the provisions of Articles 243-W and 243-N of the Constitution of India. They being crucial for the resolution of the disputes projected before us, we extract them as under: “243-N. Continuance of existing laws and Panchayats.- Notwithstanding anything in this Part, any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a State immediately before commencement of the Constitution (Seventy third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier: Provided that all the Panchayats existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each house of the Legislature of that State. 243-W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc.- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow, - (a) the Municipalities with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to, - (i) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) the performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule; (b) the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibilities conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule.” 8. There is also, as we have already noted, a prayer that a Finance Commission be constituted under Article 243-I and 243-Y of the Constitution of India, besides District Planning Committees in each district as per Article 243-ZD. In regard to Prayers 2 & 3, namely, the constitution of the District Planning Committees and the Finance Commission, there is no dispute that the Committees and the Commission have been constituted and we need not labour at all on these aspects further in this petition. The only issue, therefore, which remains to be resolved is, whether the petitioner is entitled to Relief No. 1, which we have already extracted above. 9. In regard to Relief No. 1, the stand of the respondents appears to be as follows: (i) It is their case that Article 243-W is only an enabling provision. It is their further case that there is no inconsistency, as contemplated in Article 243-N, between the provisions of the Constitution brought about by the 72nd and 73rd Amendments and the provisions contained in the 1973 Act or the 1958 Act. In fact, it is their case that the 1973 Act was enacted to provide for development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and ancillary matters. The statement of objects is invoked to point out that the Act was enacted to tackle the growing problems of town planning and urban development in the State. In fact, it is their case that the 1973 Act was enacted to provide for development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and ancillary matters. The statement of objects is invoked to point out that the Act was enacted to tackle the growing problems of town planning and urban development in the State. It is their case that the existing local bodies and other authorities, despite their best efforts, were unable to cope-up with the problems. The object and purpose of such bodies is stated to be limited as distinct from that of a municipality or a panchayat, which must discharge wide range of functions. In short, the impugned laws are not laws relating to municipalities. (ii) Next, it is contended that the provisions are not inconsistent with Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India and, according to them, the following are the constitutional mandates: (a) Constitution of Panchayats under Article 243B in accordance with Article 243C. (b) Reservation of seats for SC/STs in the manner prescribed by Article 243D. (c) Duration of Panchayat in accordance with Article 243E. (d) Disqualification of membership as envisaged by Article 243F. (f) Constitution of Finance Commission under Article 243 I. (g) The manner in which the elections have to be conducted under Article 243K. (i) Constitution of Municipalities under Article 243Q in accordance with Article 243R. (j) Constitution and composition of Wards Committee under Article 243S. (k) Reservation of seats for SC/STs in the manner prescribed by Article 243T. (l) Duration of Municipalities in accordance with Article 243E. (m) Disqualification of membership as envisaged by Article 243V. (n) Constitution of Finance Commission under Article 243Y. (o) The manner in which the elections have to be conducted under Article 243Z. (iii) It is the case of the respondents that the use of the word “may” in Article 243-W in contradistinction with the word “shall” in those Articles, where the Parliament intended that the matters must be done, goes a long way to affirm this line of reasoning. 10. We have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the only issue, which survives for our consideration, is no longer res integra; but is covered by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court. 10. We have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the only issue, which survives for our consideration, is no longer res integra; but is covered by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court. He would draw our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 129 , as also the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad and another, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 783 . 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that the issue, which is to be considered and decided by this Court, may not be covered by the aforesaid judgments. He would submit that, what has happened in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was that the U.P. Municipalities Act as also the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, in relation to provisions relating to planning and building, came to be suspended by virtue of Section 3 of the 1958 Act and Section 59 of the 1973 Act, as we have already noticed. He would, in fact, submit that, unlike the position obtaining in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case (supra), where the State constituted the Bangalore Development Authority for development of the area relating to Bangalore; in this case, the Court is called upon to decide the question relating to the suspension of the provisions of the laws relating to the U.P. Municipalities Act and the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act. He would point out that there are ample provisions relating to the regulation of urban planning and development and also the development in the Nagar Palikas and the Panchayats in the respective Acts. By the impugned Legislation, these provisions came under a shadow by virtue of the suspension; but, these latter provisions, which have suspended the earlier provisions, are themselves overwhelmed by the 72nd and 73rd Amendments to the Constitution. By the impugned Legislation, these provisions came under a shadow by virtue of the suspension; but, these latter provisions, which have suspended the earlier provisions, are themselves overwhelmed by the 72nd and 73rd Amendments to the Constitution. In other words, having regard to the provisions contained in Article 243-W and, in particular, the provision contained in Article 243-ZF, after the expiry of period of one year from the date of the advent of the Constitutional Amendments, the Court must necessarily hold that the local bodies are restored with all their powers and duties, which they had in relation to urban planning and development, as also the regulation of buildings etc, as obtaining in the earlier Acts, which we have already adverted to. He would, in fact, submit that the 1973 Act, as also the 1958 Act, are laws relating to Municipalities and, in view of the inconsistency which is there between the provisions of the Constitution as per the Amendments in question and the provisions as contained in these Acts, the result is that the earlier Acts must be restored. In short, it is his contention that, insofar as, under the Amendments, Parliament has declared that it is the local bodies, which must perform various functions, which are in fact made articulate by reference to the items finding mention in the 12Schedule to the Constitution; the provisions of the 1973 Act, as also the 1958 Act, must necessarily perish. 13. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel would reiterate the stand that Article 243-W is only an enabling provision and that there is no inconsistency as projected. He would, in fact, point out that there is a dire need to have areas developed, which is entrusted to specialized bodies to tackle the problem of unplanned growth, a task which was found not capable of being performed by the local bodies. He made an attempt to draw the attention to the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act to submit that those provisions are archaic and that they would be woefully inadequate to deal with the contingency. 14. The first question to be considered is the effect of Article 243-W of the Constitution of India. Article 243-W very clearly empowers and enables the Legislature to enact a law endowing various powers with the local bodies. 14. The first question to be considered is the effect of Article 243-W of the Constitution of India. Article 243-W very clearly empowers and enables the Legislature to enact a law endowing various powers with the local bodies. The powers are to be found in the Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution of India. They read as follows: “1. Urban planning including town planning. 2. Regulation of land-use and construction of buildings. 3. Planning for economic and social development. 4. Roads and bridges. 5. Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. 6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management. 7. Fire services. 8. Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects. 9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society, including the handicapped and mentally retarded. 10. Slum improvement and upgradation. 11. Urban poverty alleviation. 12. Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds. 13. Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects. 11 14. Burials and burial grounds; cremations, cremation grounds and electric crematoriums. 15. Cattle ponds; prevention of cruelty to animals. 16. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths. 17. Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries.” 15. Undoubtedly, a perusal of the same would reveal that the powers include the powers relating to urban planning including town planning and regulation of land-use and construction of buildings. But the question is, whether, by mere enactment of Article 243-W, could it be said that the Legislature of the State is under a bounden duty to enact such a law? Or, is it a case, where the Parliament, by the Amendments, has given a discretion and enabled the State Legislature to make such a law? 16. We may advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case (supra). The Legislature enacted the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The Authority was constituted, inter alia, to draw a detailed scheme for the Bangalore metropolitan area. Therein also, the contention was raised with reference to Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. In this context, the Court, inter alia, held as follows: “30. The BDA Act was enacted to establish a development authority for the development of city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. Therein also, the contention was raised with reference to Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. In this context, the Court, inter alia, held as follows: “30. The BDA Act was enacted to establish a development authority for the development of city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act reads thus: “Bangalore City with its population (as per last census) is a Metropolitan City. Different Authorities like the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation, the City Improvement Trust Board, the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, the Housing Board and the Bangalore City Planning Authority are exercising jurisdiction over the area. Some of the functions of these bodies like development, planning etc., are overlapping creating thereby avoidable confusion, besides hampering coordinated development. It is, therefore, considered necessary to set up a single authority like the Delhi Development Authority for the city areas adjacent to it which in course of time will become part of the city. For the speedy implementation of the above said objects as also the 20-point programme and for establishing a co-coordinating Central Authority, urgent action was called for. Moreover, the haphazard and irregular growth would continue unless checked by the Development Authority and it may not be possible to rectify or correct mistakes in the future.” 40. Any statute or provision thereof which is inconsistent with any constitutional provision will be struck down by courts. Consequently, if BDA Act or any provision of the BDA Act is found to be inconsistent with any provision of Part IXA of the Constitution, it will be struck down by courts as violative of the constitution. In regard to any provision of any law relating to municipalities, Article 243ZF suspends such invalidity or postpones the invalidity for a period of one year from 1.6.1993 to enable the competent Legislature to remove the inconsistency by amending or repealing such law relating to municipalities to bring it in consonance with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution. 41. Article 243ZF is a provision enabling continuance of any provision of a law relating to municipalities in spite of such provision being inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution for a specified period of one year. 41. Article 243ZF is a provision enabling continuance of any provision of a law relating to municipalities in spite of such provision being inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution for a specified period of one year. It does not extend the benefit of continuance to any law other than laws relating to municipalities; it also does not provide for continuance of a law for one year, if the violation is in respect of any constitutional provision other than Part IXA; and it does not declare any provision of a statute to be inconsistent with it nor declare any statute to be invalid. The invalidity of a statute is declared by a court when it finds that a statute or its provision to be inconsistent with a constitutional provision. 42. The benefit of Article 243ZF is available only in regard to laws relating to ‘municipalities’. The term ‘municipality’ has a specific meaning assigned to it under Part IX-A. Article 243P(c) defines the word as meaning an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243Q. Article 243Q refers specifically to three types of municipalities, that is, a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, a municipal council for a smaller urban area and a municipal corporation for a larger urban area. Thus, neither any city improvement trust nor any development authority is a municipality, referred to in Article 243ZF. Thus Article 243ZF has no relevance to test the validity of the BDA Act or any provision thereof. If BDA Act or any provision thereof is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA, such inconsistent provision will be invalid even from 1.6.1993, and the benefit of continuance for a period of one year permitted under Article 243ZF will not be available to such a provision of law, as BDA Act is not a law relating to Municipalities. 45. …The object was not to invalidate any law relating to city improvement trusts or development authorities which operate with reference to specific and specialised field of planned development of cities by forming layouts and making available plots/houses/apartments to the members of the public.” 17. As far as the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad and another (supra) is concerned, therein the Court took the view that Article 243-G is an enabling provision. As far as the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad and another (supra) is concerned, therein the Court took the view that Article 243-G is an enabling provision. The question related to the continued authority to cancel licence under the Essential Commodities Act, under which, the Government had passed the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, where under, the power was conferred on the District Magistrates to grant / cancel licence for fair price shop. The said power was withdrawn and, later, reintroduced. The matter arose out of a writ petition filed by a local body challenging the withdrawal of the power. The Court, inter alia, held as follows: 23. The High Court has considered the nature of the aforesaid Constitutional provision and held as under: (Zila Panchayat case, AWC pp. 3981-82, para 16) “16. In our opinion, this provision is only an enabling provision. It enables the Legislature of a State to endow the Panchayats with certain powers………Hence, the Legislature of a State is not bound to endow the Panchayats with the powers referred to Article 243-G, and it is in its discretion to do so or not. At any event there is no mention of the public distribution system in Article 243-G of the Constitution.” Thus, it is evident that the High Court has taken a view that the provision of Article 243-G is merely an enabling provision, and it is not a source of legislation. This view seems to be in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors. v. Daya Ram Saroj & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 138 , wherein an observation has been made that Article 243-G is an enabling provision as it enables the Panchayats to function as institutions of self-government. Further, this Court noted that such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them, including those in relations to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The enabling provisions are further subject to the conditions as may be specified. Therefore, it is for the State Legislature to consider conditions and to make laws accordingly. The enabling provisions are further subject to the conditions as may be specified. Therefore, it is for the State Legislature to consider conditions and to make laws accordingly. It is also open to the State to eliminate or modify the same. 24. Therefore, it is apparent that Article 243-G read with Eleventh Schedule is not a source of legislative power, and it is only an enabling provision that empowers a State to endow functions and devolve powers and responsibilities to local bodies by enacting relevant laws. The local bodies can only implement the schemes entrusted to them by the State.” 18. We may also advert to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shanti G. Patel and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 505 . Therein, the Court, inter alia, held as follows: “9. Article 243W whereupon great emphasis has been laid by the petitioners herein provides for an enabling clause so as to enable the State to endow by law the Municipality with such powers and authority, as may be necessary, to enable the State to make by law by endowing the Municipalities to function as institutions of self-government which may contain provisions of the devolution of powers and responsibilities subject to the conditions which may be specified in the Twelfth Schedule. The Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution referable to Article 243W, inter alia, provides for Urban planning including town planning, regulation of landuse and construction of buildings. Thus, Article 243W contains merely an enabling provision, and it does not mean that the State is obligated to provide for such a statute. The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, in any event, does not envisage that the existing laws would become non-operative or a vacuum would be created in the matter of enforcement of existing laws relating to urban planning and/or regulation of land use and construction of buildings etc. 10. The existing provisions of the statutes which govern the field, in our opinion, unless a statute is enacted by the State Legislature in terms of Article 243W of the Constitution of India would continue to operate in the field. 10. The existing provisions of the statutes which govern the field, in our opinion, unless a statute is enacted by the State Legislature in terms of Article 243W of the Constitution of India would continue to operate in the field. In view of the fact that the validity and/or interpretation of the MRTP Act and/or the regulations framed by the State are otherwise pending consideration before this Court, entertaining this special leave petition at this stage, in our opinion, would not serve any fruitful purpose.” 19. Therefore, in the light of the declaration of law by the Apex Court, we can proceed safely on the basis that Article 243-W is only an enabling provision, under which, it is open to the Legislature to provide bye-laws or endow the Municipalities with power in relation to the matters, which are provided therein, read with the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution. 20. Article 243-ZF is a similar like provision to Municipalities as is contained in Article 243-N, which we have already extracted above. As far as the inconsistency alleged based on Article 243-ZF with the law in question is concerned, we are of the view that the said argument will not hold good as far as the 1973 Act is concerned. That is a law, which is based on the Legislative perception for the need for planned development and, on the said basis, Section 3 thereof provides as follows: “3. Declaration of development areas. – If in the opinion of the State Government any area within the State requires to be developed according to plan, it may, by notification in the Gazette, declare the area to be a development area.” 21. Section 4 of the 1973 Act creates the Development Authority. The Development Authority is not the same as a local body or a municipality. Its composition, as contained in Section 4, makes that clear. May be, there is representation given to the elected counsellors of the municipality, but this appears to be a specialised body specially created to tackle the problem of unplanned development. It may be true that there may be areas, which are common to both the Municipality and the Development Authority in terms of the powers. The primary object is to have developed areas, which are to be planned for and development works executed therein as contemplated in the Act. It may be true that there may be areas, which are common to both the Municipality and the Development Authority in terms of the powers. The primary object is to have developed areas, which are to be planned for and development works executed therein as contemplated in the Act. The Legislature of the State has not deemed it fit to confer the powers on the local bodies within the meaning of Article 243-W. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the 1973 Act is a law relating to municipality. We draw support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s case (supra) and we take the view that neither the 1973 Act nor the 1958 Act could be treated as law relating to municipalities as such. No doubt, the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and the other local body legislation, namely, the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act have been suspended by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of the 1958 Act and Section 59 of the 1973 Act. Section 58 of the 1973 Act, being relevant, we extract it hereunder: “58. Dissolution of Authority.- (1) Where the State Government is satisfied that the purposes for which the Authority was established under this Act have been substantially achieved so as to render the continued existence of the Authority in the opinion of the State Government unnecessary, that Government may by notification in the Gazette, declare that the Authority shall be dissolved with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification; and the Authority shall be deemed to be dissolved accordingly. (2) From the said date- (a) all properties, funds and dues which are vested in or realisable by, the Authority shall vest in, or be realisable by, the State Government; (b) all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government: (c) all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government: and (d) for the purpose of carrying out any development which has not been fully carried out by the Authority and for the purposes of realising properties, funds and dues referred to in Clause (a) the functions of the Authority shall be discharged by the State Government.” 22. Petitioner does not have a case that the time is ripe for the dissolution of the authority within the meaning of Section 58 of the 1973 Act. Therefore, we are not called upon to decide the said issue. Under Section 59 of the 1973 Act, the Legislature has provided for a repeal of the provisions, which have been adverted to and which the petitioner wishes to revive, which repeal will continue unless action is taken for dissolving the authority under Section 58. Even the petitioner does not have a case that, despite conditions existing for the dissolution of the body under Section 58, the Government is refusing to do so. Thus, the resultant position is that the provisions, which the petitioner wishes to revive, are in a state of eclipse by virtue of the repeal of these provisions in view of the effect of the suspension being so as declared. In other words, these provisions are no longer existent. This Court cannot be persuaded to bring back to life the provisions as the petitioner wishes, as it would be contrary to the effect of the repeal. We also find no basis for the petitioner raising his claim to have right to the revival of these repealed provisions based on the constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendments, be it in the form of Article 243-W, which is a purely enabling provision under which a law could be made and there is no case that such a law has been made; as also Article 243-ZF, which speaks of inconsistency with the constitutional provisions in a law relating to municipality spelling death for the provisions, which are inconsistent, cannot assist the petitioner. 23. We find merit in the contention of the respondents that, when Article 243-ZF speaks about inconsistency with the law relating to municipality, in the first place, there must be a law relating to municipality. Still furthermore, the law relating to municipality must be inconsistent with the provisions in the Constitution brought about by the amendments, wherein Parliament has unequivocally declared that, henceforth, the provisions shall be as declared in the relevant constitutional provisions. We see merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that such provisions are those, which have been set out by us, wherein such peremptoriness has been unerringly spelt out by the use of language leaving no choice. We see merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that such provisions are those, which have been set out by us, wherein such peremptoriness has been unerringly spelt out by the use of language leaving no choice. They include matters relating to the composition of the local body, reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the duration of the Panchayats, disqualification of membership under Article 243-F, the constitution of Finance Commission and constitution of Ward Committees. The matters, which are referred to in the Twelfth Schedule pertaining to Article 243-W, are items which could fall within the province of the local body if the Legislature made a value judgment by making a law providing for such a contingency. Such a contingency is not an imperative, which is to be followed by the Legislature irrespective of circumstances, which may be obtaining in a particular State. As already noted, Article 243-W is an enabling provision. 24. The offshoot of the above discussion is that we see no reason why we should declare that the 1973 Act and the 1958 Act stood repealed on the basis of Article 243-ZF or Article 243-N. Likewise, the alternate prayer, namely, to direct restoration of the Local Bodies Acts, which were under suspension, cannot also be granted. The suspension by the impugned laws continues to hold good. The constitutional amendments, i.e. 73rd and 74th Amendments, do not have the effect of reversing either Section 3 of the 1958 Act or Section 59 of the 1973 Act, as such a contingency cannot flow from the provisions contained in Article 243-N or Article 243-ZF. 25. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and, accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.