Case: State Of Gujarat &amp; Another Vs. Zinabhai Ranchhodji Darji &amp; Ors

2. The facts may be succinctly stated. In the elections to the Vyara Taluka Panchayat which took place in 1968 respondent No.1 was elected as a member. At the first meeting of the Taluka Panchayat he was elected as its President. Thereupon he became ex-officio member of the Surat District Panchayat by virtue of Section 15 (1) (A) (i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961, hereinafter called the Panchayats Act. He was ultimately elected as President of the Surat District Panchayat. He ceased to hold his office of President of the Taluka Panchayat. Surat District consists of several Talukas; one of such Talukas is called Chorashi Taluka for which a Taluka Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the Panchayats Act. Two areas known as Rander and Adajan were subject to the authority of the Surat District Panchayat and the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat. Rander had a Nagar Panchayat and Adajan had a Gram Panchayat. On January 16, 1970,a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 3 (3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949, to be referred to as the Corporations Act by which the local areas of Rander and Adaian were included within the limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation. This was followed by a notification dated January 21, 1970 under Section 9 (2) of the Panchayats Act declaring that the local area of Rander shall cease to be a Nagar and that of Adajan shall cease to be a Gram with effect from February 1, 1970. The net result was that Rander and Adajan stood excluded from the limits of the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat. A notification was issued on June 13, 1963 by the Development Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 310-A of the Pnchayats Act and delegated to him dissolving the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and Surat District Panchayat with effect from January 11, 1971 with a direction that the members of the dissolved Panchayat shall vacate offices and that the Taluka and District Panchayats shall be reconstituted with members specified in clause 3 of the Order read with Schedules 1 and 2, Respondent No.1 having ceased to hold office as President of the Vyara Taluka Panchayat when he was elected as President of the Surat District Panchayat could not be as ex-officio member of the reconstituted Surat District Panchayat becasue he had ceased to be an ex-officio member as such. He was not an elected member of the Surat District Panchayat and was not appointed a member under Section 310-A (2) (b) of the Panchayat Act. He, therefore, ceased to be a member of the Surat District Panchayat as reconstituted. This led to the cessation of his holding the office of the President of that Panchayat. He filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made by the Development Commissioner.      3. Before the High Court two main grounds were taken on behalf of respondent No.1 The first was that the Development Commissioner as a delegate of the State Government had no power to dissolve the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat under Section 310-A (1) of the Panchayats Act by reason of the provisions contained in sub-section (10) of that section. The second point was that the order had been made by the Development Commissioner mala fide. The High Court decided the first question against the State and held that by reason of the exception contained in Section 310-A (10) of the Panchayats Act the Development Commissioner had no power to dissolve the Panchayat in question under sub-section (1) of that section. The second point was not gone into as it was considered unnecessary to decide it.

Court's reasoning:
As has been pointed out by the High Court if the city of Surat which was originally a municipal borough constituted under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 became a municipal borough under the deeming provisions of the Municipalities Act 1963 there would have been no difficulty in applying S. 310A (10) and its provisions would have excluded the applicability of sub-s. (1) of S. 310A when the limits of Chorashi Taluka and the Surat district were altered by reason of Rander and Adajan having been excluded from the same and included in the city of Surat as a result of the notification dated January 16, 1970. But the municipal borough of Surat had been converted into a city with effect from October 1, 1966 as noticed before under the provisions of the Corporations Act. This immediately led to the question whether the applicability of S.310 A (10) would be attracted by virtue of S. 493 read with Appendix IV. Para 1 of the Corporations Act7. The approach of the High Court appears to have been that the word district in S. 1 (3) must mean a revenue district and not a district as defined in S. 2 (6) of the Panchayats Act. The opening words of the definition section are "unless the context otherwise requires". Section 1 (2) of the same Act declares that it extends to the whole of the State of Gujarat. Sub-section (3) provides that S.1 shall come into force at once. It further provides that all or any of the remaining provisions of the Panchayats Act shall come into force in respect of such class of panchayats in such districts and on such dates as the State Government may by notification appoint. The State Government can appoint different dates in respect of different districts and different provisions. From this the High Court concluded that the word "district? in section 1 (3) must mean a revenue district. The main reason which prevailed with High Court was that the word "district" in that provision could not be construed to a district which was yet to be formed under section 2 (6) of the panchayats Act particularly when that provision could come into force only when the notification had been issued under S.1 (3). Thus a district under the Panchayats Act could be formed only if its provisions were brought into force. It may be useful to give conclusion of the High Court in its own words:"......how can a notification be issued by the State Government under section 1 sub-s. (3) bringing into force the provisions of the Panchayats Act in a district which can exist legally as well as conceptually only after the provisions of the Act are brought into force? Section 1 sub-s (3) applies at a stage prior to the formation of the district under the Panchyats Act..."The High Court also referred to the provisions of S. 9 of the Panchayats Act and illustrated how the State Government could not invoke its provisions for the purpose of declaring such revenue village or group of revenue villages to be a Nagar or a Gram. It was only it S.9 was in force in the local area comprising in such revenue village or group of revenue villages that State Government could acting under that section declare such local area to be a Nagar or a Gram. Similar would be the case with reference to S. 307 of the Panchayats Act which is to be found in Chapter XVI which makes provisions for conversion of municipality into a Panchayat and for amalgamation and division of Panchayats. Section 310A was applied by means of a notification dated February 7, 1963. The High Court construed the notification to mean that it was applied to the revenue district of Surat which would include the municipal borough of Surat. Now Para I of Appendix IV in the Corporation Act Lays down that references in any enactment other than the three enactments mentioned therein which were in force on the date preceding the appointed day in a city to municipal boroughs etc. shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the City. If S. 310A of the Panchayats Act was in force in the revenue district of Surat it applied to the municipal borough of Surat prior to that borough becoming a City with effect from October 1, 1966. The Panchayats Act was thus in force in the municipal borough of Surat immediately preceding October 1, 1966 on which date Surat became a City. If follows that "municipal borough" in S.310A (10) of the Panchayats Actwould have the meaning of the word "City"8. Before us no attempt was made on behalf of the State to demolish all the steps in the above process of reasoning and in particular the conclusion of the High Court thatA (10) of the Panchayats Actwas applicable to a revenue district which included the borough of Surat before it became a city. It was suggested on behalf of the State that the provisions of the Panchayats Act with the exception of S.1 (2) were to be applied in respect of such class of panchayats in such districts and on such dates as the State Government may be notification appoint. The provisions of the Panchayats Act could thus be made applicable only in respect of pahchayats. What S. 1 (3) however provides is that the provisions of the Act can be brought into force in such districts as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. Indeed the notification dated February 7, 1963 provided that the provisions of S. 310 shall come into force in all the districts of the State of Gujarat except the district of DangsThe omission of the word "city" from the Explanation, It is said, is significant and it would be wholly impermissible to travel beyond the Explanation which contains the key to the meaning of the word "municipal borough" as employed in the sub-section. It alos shows a contrary intention which rules out the applicability of Para I of Appendix IV of the Corporation Act. It has also been urged that the words "conversion of a municipal borough into a Gram or a Nagar" in sub-s. (10) of S. 310-A of the Panchayats Act could not possibly take in a city which would ordinarily have a population of more than two lakhs. By reading the word "city" in place of the word "municipal borough" by applying Para I of Appendix IV of the Corporations Act the result would be so absurd that it would be contrary to all canons of interpretation to do so, It does appear somewhat unusual that the draftsmen of S. 310A and in particular sub-s. (10) of that section should have omitted the word "city" from the principal part of that sub-section as also the Explanation. But it is equally possible that the applicability of Appendix IV (para I) of the Corporations Act was kept in view and it was considered unnecessary to expressly mention the word "city" in S. 310A (10) of the Panchayat Act. The High Court was of the opinion with regard to the second limb of the argument on this point that although it would be impossible to conceive of a situation where a city might be converted into a Gram or a Nagar but that would only mean that no occasion would arise in to invoke the words "conversion of a municipal borough into a Gram or a Nagar.". These words would not be rendered meaningless as they would continue to apply to a situation where a municipal borough (within the meaning of the Municipalities Act) and not a city was converted into a Gram or Nagar10. After fully considering the contentions raised on behalf of the State we are not satisfied that there is any such infirmity in the Judgment of the High Court which makes it erroneous or would justify our taking a different view. It must be remembered that in the matter of interpretation of enactments which are in force in a particular State this court generally attaches a good deal of value to the views of the High Court of that State, particularly when they have been fully considered by it, because that court is expected to be sufficiently conversant with the provisions of the various local enactments