AYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI

STATE OF U.P. & March 13, 1968

[M. HIDAYATULLAII, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM,

K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)

, U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zita Pa,.islrads Adhiniyam, 1961 (33 of 1963), ss. 3, 4, 8 a11d 8A-Abolitio11 of Khands and tenninc.1io11 of Saniities-lf Executive Governnient has power-Power to ter1nitU1tc-.lf

etcessive delecation-lf violative of Art .. 14 o/ tl1c Constitution.

The appellant was elected Pramukh of a Kshcttra Samiti and his term of office which was co-terminus with that Of the Sarniti, was for five years.

fhe Government of Uttar Pradesh issued two notification's t\ndcr ss. 3 and 8 of the Ulla\- Pradesh Kshcttra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhini yam, 1961, by \Vhich the rural areas in the district Ylerc redivided into i1ew Khands, the Khand relating to the appellant's Samiti was abolished and the term of the Samiti was brought to a close. As a consequence, the appellant lost the office of Pramukh of the Samiti. His writ petition in the High Court challenging the notifications was dismissed.

In appeal to this Court it wps contended that: (I) The two notifica tions arc repugnant to th~ scheme of the Act; (2) Sections 3 and 8 are i:ontrary to the other provisions of the Act under \vhich a San1iti once constituted had a corporate existence v+'ith perpetual succession owning prope'rty and a fund, and \\'hose existence for 5 years v; as contemplated under the Act with the possibility of further continuance; (3) Sections 3 .ind 8 \Vere invalid because they involved excessive delegation of Jcgisl~· tive functions to the State Government, and (4) Th~ sections violate :\rt.

14 of the Constitution because they furnish an indirect tncthod of re moving the Pramukh, Uppramukh and members of a K!:ihcttra Samlti without resorting to the app'ropriate pro\'isions in the Act.

HELD: (1) The notifications fiO\V fron1 an express grant of po'~'er to the Executive by the Legislature. [438 BJ

The Act \\'as -jntcndcd to make dcn1ocracy broa<l-h:tct.l and to ;.ve training, in the art of administration and running dcn1ocracy, to the rur11.I -t:)()J>ulation.

Its scheme indicates that the a'rea of the district is required io be divided into many Khands with a Kshettra Samiti in each Khand. 'fhe po\\--cr to create Khands nn1st he read with the: po\\er to abolish Kbands and create new Khands in their place.

Sections 3, 4, 8 and SA confer po\\er upon the Sh1te Governn1cnt to alter the area of th~ Khand,

abolish old Khands, constitute nc\v Khands nnd re-establish old one<;; and this po., vcr is given by the Legislature advisedly, so that the \Vorking of dcmoc'racy in the rural areas in Kshcttra Samitics and Zila Parishds reav be smooth and without difficulty, [435 D-E; 437 G-H; 538 GJ -

(2) The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot be said to negative the other provisions of the Act, vYhich merely indicate \\'hat a Kshettra San1iti is required to do as Jong as it cxisls. Perpetual succession only means succession of one S.arniti to another, hut docs not entail perpetual existence of any Samiti or any Khand not\\ithstanding the inadvisability of conti nuing it for administrative or other valid reason<;.

Simila'rly, tho fct lhat thl.! San1ities arc rcquird to function \\"ith right to hold property, to

434 SUPIU!MB COURT lll'OltTS

[1968] 3 S.C.R •

posselis fund and to carry on administration, does not show that the power given. by the Act to reconstitute Khands is in any way impail:ed or frustrated. The lint power exists whon the Samities are established and continue; and the se<:Olld come& into play when the need for the re coastitution of a .K:band emerges. [438 B-FJ

(3) The Act has not erred by conceding unfettered or uncanalized power to the State GOVWIDlent. [439 DE]

1be underlying policy and the objective of the legislation is set out in the preamble and o!her provisions of the Act and the Act gives ample indication of what the puipose of making a Khand is and the duties wb1cb the Samlti must p"form. The del3ils of how big a Khand should be, what territory it should involve and. how many Samities should be con stituted in each diStrict, etc. cannot be the subject of detailed legislation and th.ey are eminently matters which can be left to the determination of the Executive which is to act in conformity with the wishes of the local e, the political exigency of the situation and the i"equirements of administrative control.

On this subject the legislative will has been expressed in sufficient detail giving guidance to the State Government in mating its notifications to implement it. [438 G-H; 439 C-EJ

State .of Bhopal cit Ors. v. Champa/al cit Ors., [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35, followed.

( 4) Sections 3 and 8 do not .violate Art. 14. The provision in ihe Act on the •ubject of nmoval of members of a Samiti and that dealing with the subject of re"pnisation of Khands deal with dilferent powers

and cannot be c~~ at all. One is concem..i dlrectlY with the re moval of Pramukb, Up-Pramukh and other members, while the other is concerned diroctly with tlie abolition and reconstitution of Kbands. It may be that by abolishina: al Kband and its Kshettra Samiti. the members, including the Pramutb, must also go; but, that is the comequence of the E exercise of a dilferent power. If, however the actiOn in abolishing the Khand is for the direct purpoae of the removal of a Pramukh, Up- Pramukh or member of a Samiti, the action of the Executive Government can be struck down as ma/4 fide. In the present case, there is no evidence of any ma/4 {ides. [439 0-H; 440 A-CJ

Ram Dial and Ors. v. State of Pun; ab, [19651 2 S.C.R. 858. distin guished.

F CIVIL APPELLATE JUJtlSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1805 of 1967.

ApJJ.elll by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20th October 1967 o~ the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 864 ot 1967.

R; K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Anil Kumar, Shiv Punjan Si11g/1 N. M. Ghatate, for the appell\lnt.

C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment of a division Bench, October 20, 1967, in a Special Appeal (No. 864 of 1967) of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the dis-

A. P. VAJPAI V. u:P. STATE (Hidtiyatullah, C.J.) 435

A missal of 61 writ petitions by a learned single Judge of the High Court. This appeal arises from one such petition. The appellant was elected Pramukh of Sarwan Khera Kshettra Samiti and his term of office which was co-terminus with the term of the Samifi, extended to five years. He challenges in this appeal, (as he did in the High Court), two Government notifications issued B by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh

Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (Act 33 of 1963). By these notifications the Government of Uttar Pradesh has redivided the rural area in the district to which the matter relates into neVI' Khands specifying the limits and constituents of their areas and as a consequence has abolished a few khands and created new Khands in their place. The Khand C relating to the appellant's Samiti has been abolished by the first notification and by the second notification the term of the Samiti has also been brought to a close. Both the notifications are of July I, 1966. 'The appellant challenges these notifications as also ss. 3 and 8 of the Act on various grounds. To understand his contentions we may begin by setting -out how the Act is D constructed. ·

The Act was passed in 1961 for the establishment of Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads in Uttar Pradesh. h was intended to make democracy broad-based and to give training in the art of administration and running democracy to the rural population.

E It is a long Act of 27.4 sections and 8 schedules. It is not possible tof"ve more than a brief idea of the constitution of the Samitis an their functions and organisation. The preamble of the Act states as follows :

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the establishment of Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads in the F districts of Uttar Pradesh to undertake certain governmental functions at Kshettra and district levels respectively in furtherance of the principle of democratic decentralisation of governmental fupctions and for ensuring proper municipal government in rural areas, and to correlate the powers and functions of Gaon G Sabhas under the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, with Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads;"

The Act goes on to define a Kshettra Samiti as a Kshettra Samiti established under s. 5 of the Act and a Khand as an area of the district specified as such by the State Government under s. 3 Chapter II of the Act deals inter alia with the establish- H ment of Kshettra Samitis and s. 3 provides as follows :-

"The State Government shall by notification in the Gazette divide the rural area of each district into khands

436 SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS

(1968] 3 S.C.R

specifying each Khand by a name and the limits or constituents of its area and may likewise change the names or make modifications in the areas and limits of the Khands by including therein or excluding therefrom areas or create new Khands."

This section allows the State Government to divide the rural area of each district into Khands. It also enables the Government to change the name of a Kshettra Samiti and to make modifications in the areas and limits of the Khands and to create new Khands. Section 4 specifies the effect of change in Khands

and the temporary and permanent consequences thereof are provided for.

Section 5 then deals with the establishment and C incorporation of Kshettra Samitis for each Khand bearing the name of the Khand for which it .is established. It says inter alia that every Kshettra Samiti is a body corporate having peqietual succession ap.d common seal and subject to any restrictions or

qualificatio~ imposed by any other enacfuumi.s, possesses , the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into contracts and may by its corporate name sue and be sued.

D Section 6 details the composition of Kshettra Samitis providing for elections and cooptions. Section 7 lays down the procedure for the election of the Pramukhs. and the Up-Pramukhs of the Kshettra Samitis and its members and s. 9 in the same way deals with the term of the Pramukhs and the Up-Pramukhs.

Section 10 then enables the Government to ararnge for the constitution of the first Kshettra Samiti for every Khand and for the

rec:onstitution thereof on the expiry of the first and each subsequent term or when otherwise required under the Act having regard io the provisions of s. 6.

Sections 11-16 deal with the resigilatio11 of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs and members, filling of casual vacancies, disqualifications for being chosen or co-opted as members,, disputes as to membership or disqualification and motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and removal of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. Jn this way complete local self-government is established. ·

In 19.65 by a Sanshodan Adhiniyam, 1965 certain changes were introduced in the parent Act. In s. 8 a second proviso was inserted which read: ''Provided further that where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do with a view. to re-organisation of Khands, it may by notification in the Gazette determine the term of all or any Kshettra Samitis.'' The Amending Ac.t also added section SA of which the second sub-section is material for our purpose and may be read here.

A. P. VAJPAI v. U.P. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 437

A "Where on account of changes in the areas of the .Kharids under section 4, a Khand ceases to exist, or where under the second proviso to sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 8 the term of the .Kshettra Sarniti of any Khand is determined, the Pramukh and the memlier of the .Kshettra Samiti of such Khand who are members of B the Zila Parishad under clauses (i) and (ii) respectively of sub-section (1 ) of Section 18 shall, notwithsthanding anything contained in Sections 18 and 20, continue to be members of the Parishad for the residue of the term of the Parishad."

When the .Kshettra Samitis were formed Khands were estab- 1.isb.ed and the appellant was the Pramukh of .Kshettra Samiti relating io a .Khand called Sarwan Khera.

By the impugned notifications, the Khand and its Kshettra Sarniti have been abolished and the appellant loses the office of Pramukh of the Kshettra Samiti concemeil. He challenged in the High Court the two notifications as ultra vires and repugnant to the scheme and the purpose of the Act. He challenged also ss. 3 and 8 as suffering from excessive delegation of legislative functions and involving a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

These arguments were repelled concurrently in the High Court and his further allegation that the action was ma/a. fide was also discountenanced. He urged the same arguments.before us.

Mr. R. K. Garg on behalf of the appellant took us through the provisions of the Act pointing out that the Sarniti once constituted had a corporate existence with perpetual succession and it was not possible for the State Government to destroy a corpor3.tion so set up and which. owned property and a fund and whose

exiatence for five years was contemplated under the Act . with F possibility of further continuance. It is noi necessary to refer to these sections because they are to be found .in all legislation

deiiling with the establishment of corporate local self-Govern ment bodies. The question is not whether Kshettra Samitis enjoy peipetua1 succe8sion. The question is whether the Kshettra Samitis once established enjoy perpetual existence. The schenie G of the Act clearly indicates thai the area of the district is required to 9c divided into many .Khands with a Kshettra Sainiti in each Khand. Sections 3, 4, 8 and SA confer power upon the State Government to alter the . area of the Khand, constitute new Kh:inds and n;-establish old ones. This power is . given by the legislature advisedly so that the working of democracy in the

rural areas in the Kshettra Sarnitis and Zila Parishads may be smooth and without difficulty. The reorganisation of the .Khands B

may e necessary because of circumlltances too numerous to mention here. Power has, therefore, been reserved to Govern-

SUPREME COURT RBPORTS

(1968] 3 S.C.R.

ment to make the alterations as stated above.

It will be seen that the latter part of s. 3 gives specific power to .create new Khands in addition to the change of areas of the existing Khands wllich means that new Khands may be brought into existeoce and old Khands abolished. In fact, ss. 4 and SA and the newly added provisO to section 8 bear upon the abolition of existing Khands.

In other words, what the State Government did was by an express grant from the legislature. The other provisions o[ the Act to which our attention was drawn merely indicate what Kshettra Samiti is required to do as long as the Kshettra Samiti exists.

Similarly the term of the Kshettra Samitis is to apply to a Kshettra Samiti which is not abolished but continues. The perpetual succession in this context means successions of one Kshettra Samiti to another but in fact it does not entail perpetual existence of any Samiti or any Khand notwithstanding the inadvisability of continuing it for administrative or other valid reason.

The power exercised by the Government in issuing the two notifications flow clearly from the provisions of the law under which Government was acting.

It is for this reason that the attack of Mr. Garg was next directed against ss. 3 arid 8 of the Act. He compared .the power to make new Khands and to reorganise the old ones with the other scheme of the Act under which the Kshettra Samitis are required to function with right to hold property, to possess fund and to carry on administration. All this does not show that the power given by the act to reconstitute Khands is in any way impaired or frustrated. The two pgwers are quite distinct. The first power exists when the Samitis are established and Continue.

The second power comes into play when the need for reconstitution of the Khand emerges. The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot thus 'be said to negative the other J>rDVisions to which our atiention was drawn. ·

It was next contended by Mr. Garg that ss. 3 and 8 were invalid because they involved excessive delegation of legislative functions to the State Government and being_ not supported by adequate safeguards or guides, 1nust be struck down. This argument is not valid. The Act speaks for itself and is self-contained. Its policy is .stated in clear terms and the power to create Khands must be read with the power to abolish Khands and create new Khands in their place. The details of how big a Khand should be, .wat territory it should involve and so on and so forth cannot be the subject of detailed legislation.

The Act gives ample indication of what the pui:pose of making a Khand is and the duties which the Kshettra Samitis must perform.

On t11is subject the legislative will has been sufficiently expressed and must, therefore, guide the State Government in making its notifi-

A. P. VAJPAI v. U.P. STATE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 439

A cations. This case is analogous to the one reported in State o.f Bhopal and others v. Champa/al and other~('). In that case 11 was observed that the pteamble and long utle of ll Act made it clear that the enactment was ''.for the reclamation and the development of the land by the eradication of Kans weed in certain areas in the State." The purpose being specified as the a eradication of kans in area infested with it, the Act was said to

be valid although the selection of the land was left to the cutive. The legislative policy behind the provisions of Jaw were held to be writ large on it, and what remained or was left to the

Executive was to carry out the mandate and give effect to the Jaw to achieve the purpose of the Act. c

In present case also the underlying policy and the obtive of the legislation is cleilrly set out and the details of the duues ot the Kshettra Samitis are indicated. It has, however, been left to the State Government to determine what the Khands should be and how many Kshettra Samitis sho_uld be constituted in each district. This is not a subjt for detailed legislation because it is eminently a .matter which can be left to the determination of the Executive which is to act in conformity with the wishes of the 1oca1 people, the political exigency of the situation and the requirements of administrative control. In our opinion, the Act has not erred by conceding unfetrered or uncanalised power to the State Government as is contended. On the other hand, it has itself spoken on the relevant subject in full detail so as to outline its own will which alone the Executive is supposed to implement.

It was next contended that ss. 3 and 8 violate Art. 14 because they furnish an indirect method of removal of the Pramukh, the

Up-Pramukh and the Members of a Kshettra Samiti without hav- F 1ng to take recourse to the provisions for their removal as laid down. i.n the A7t. . Reliance in this connection is placed upon

~ deem on of this Court in Ram Dial and others v. StatP of Punjab (1). That case iseasily distinguishable.

ere the Punjab Municipalities Act contained two provis10ns for the i:e!Doval of a mem})er in the public G mterest. By one prov1s100 he was entitled to a hearing and by the other not. This Court held .that as it was open to choose one: method . rather than the other and that there was room for arbitrary action. Here the provision on the subject of removal of embers of th~ K;9hettra Samitis are not congruous with the

llbJec! of fC?rgan1Sat1on of Khands. The two provisions operate H m entirely different fields.

One is concerned directly with the remov~ o! the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh and the members.

The other is directly concerned with the abolition of the Khands and


(2) [19551 2 S.C.R. 858.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1968] 3 S.C.ll.

rec:Onstiution of different Khands.

These are two different If. powers and cannot be compared at all. It may be that by

abolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti !he members also must go, but that is a consequence of the exercise of quite a different power. Of course, if the action in abolishing the Khand could be shown to be directly connected with the removal of the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or a member of the Kshettra Samiti the B action of the Executive Government can be struck down as mala fide.

It was for this purpose that 1lhe appellant pleaded in the High Court ma/a {ides on the part of the Government. The two judgments now under appeal negative the existence of any ma1a fide intention. No material was placed before us io establish ma/a {ides nor could the findings be. attacked since tl)ey were concurrently reached. In this view of the matter we must hold that the State Government in exercising its powers acted honestly and within the four corners of its jurisdiction.

[n the result the appeal must be !J.eld to be without substance.

It will be dismissed with costs.

V.P.S.

Appeal dismissed.