http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: B.N. SHANKARAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UTHANUR SRINIVAS AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/01/1992

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K. SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  836            1992 SCR  (1) 286  1992 SCC  (2)  61        JT 1992 (1)   389  1992 SCALE  (1)213

ACT:      Karnataka  Zila Parishads, Taluk  Panchayats  Samithis, Mandal  Panchayats  and Nyaya Panchayats  Act,  1983-Section 4(1),  (2)  read with Section 14 of  the  Karnataka  General Clauses  Act, 1897-Deputy Commissioner-Powers  under-Whether he  can exercise the power to specify the  headquarter  from time to time-Location of headquarter of a  Mandal-Discretion of authority-Scope of-Interference by Court when  discretion exercised arbitrarily.      Karnataka  Zila  Parishads, Taluk  Panchayat  Samithis, Mandal  Panchayats  and Nyaya Panchayats Act,  1983  Section 4(2)read with Section 14, the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1897-Construction-Whether  powers  under  exhaust  once   a Mandal initially constituted and its headquarter specified.

HEADNOTE:      On   16.1.1986,  the  Deputy  Commissioner   issued   a notification  constituting a Mandal under section 4  (1)  of the  Karnataka  Zila Parishads,  Taluk  Panchayat  Samithis, Mandal  Panchayats  and  Nyaya   Panchayats  Act,  1983  and located the headquarter of the Mandal at Mudiyannur.   Later on  exercising  powers  under section 4 (3) of  the  Act  he changed the headquarter to Uthanpur.      On  14.12.1987  a writ petition (W.P.No.  7685/86)  was filed challenging the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.      The  High Court dismissed the petition holding that  on passing  a  resolution my Mandal to change  the  headquarter from  the  existing  place  to  another  place,  the  Deputy Commissioner  was to consider if he would like  to  exercise power under section 4(2) of the Act.      The Mandal passed a fresh resolution and thereupon  the Deputy  Commissioner issued a notification under  section  4 (2)  of the Act for change of headquarter and  on  20.1.1988 the draft notification was published in the Gazette.      The respondents 1 to 10 filed a writ petition (W.P.  No 1888/88)                                                        287 before  the High Court challenging the  draft  notification. The writ petition was dismissed.      Considering  the resolution and the objections  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

notification,   the  Deputy  Commissioner   issued   another notification  under  section  4  (2)  of  the  Act  and  the headquarter  of  the  Mandal was changed  from  Uthanpur  to Mudiyannur.      The respondents challenged the notification by   filing a revision application under section 4 (3) of the Act  which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner.      The respondents moved the High Court in W.P. No. 77  of 1989 challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner.      The  Single  Judge  of the  High  Court  dismissed  the petition,  against  which  an appeal was  filed  before  the Division Bench of the High Court.      The  Division  Bench allowed the  appeal  following  an earlier  decision of the High Court in Writ Application  No. 2564 of 1987 dated 28.5.1991.      The  correctness of the decision of the Division  Bench of  the High Court was challenged in this appeal by  special leave.      The appellant contended that once the power to  specify the headquarter was conferred on the Deputy Commissioner  by Section 4 (1) of the Act, it could be exercised from time to time  by  virtue  of section 14  of  the  Karnataka  General Clauses  Act,1897; that the scheme of section 4 of  the  Act should  be  construed  with the aid of  section  14  of  the General  Clauses  Act  in such a manner as not  to  leave  a vacuum   for  the  exercise  of  power  for  a   change   of headquarter;  that  if the High Court’s view  was  approved, there  could be no power vested in any authority  whatsoever for   changing   or  specifying  the  headquarter   of   the reconstituted  Mandal which vacuum might lead  to  avoidable complications;  and that once the legislature  invested  the Deputy   Commissioner   with  the  power  to   specify   the headquarter under section 4 (1), subject to the modification by the Commissioner under section 4 (3), the power to  alter the  headquarter  of the Mandal from time to  time,  if  the occasion so required, must be read into it.                                                      288      The respondents submitted that while sub-section (2) of Section  4  of  the  Act  in  terms  empowered  the   Deputy Commissioner to alter the headquarter of the Mandal  because the  headquarter  once specified under section  4(1)  should remain unaltered; that the act designedly did not confer any power on any authority whatsoever to change the  headquarter once specified under section 4 (1).      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD   :  1.01  Section  4  (1)  empowers  the   Deputy Commissioner to do two things, namely (i) to declare an area as a Mandal, and (ii) to specify its headquarter. [293 B]      1.02 The power conferred by sub-section (2) of  Section 4 of the Karnataka Zila Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal  Panchayats  and Nyaya Panchayats Act,  1983  can  be exercised where there is a change in the areas of the Mandal either  by addition or reduction in the area.  Under  clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Deputy Commissioner is  also  invested with the power to alter the name  of  any Mandal. [293 D-E]      1.0  The scheme of sub-section (2) of Section  4  would show that when there is any increase or decrease in the area of  any  Mandal,  the Deputy  Commissioner  may,  after  the previous   publication  of  the  proposal  by  notification, exercise  that power and rename the Mandal, if so  required. [293 E]      1.04   If  the  situation  so  demands  and  there   is justification  for  altering the place  of  headquarter,  it would  be open to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise  power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

under  section 4 (1) of the Act read with Section 14 of  the General Clauses Act to meet the situation. [294 C]      1.05  The word ‘also’ preceding the words ‘specify  its headquarter’  cannot be understood to convey that the  power once  exercised would stand exhausted.  Such a  construction sought  to be placed by counsel for the respondent does  not accord  with  the  language of  the  provision.   It  merely conveys  that  when the Deputy  Commissioner  constitutes  a Mandal  for the first time it will be necessary for  him  to specify its headquarter also. [293 B-C]      1.06 The power to specify the headquarter conferred  on the  Deputy Commissioner can be exercised from time to  time as occasion                                                        289 requires by virtue of section 14 of the General Clauses Act. [293 C-D]      1.07 The ultimate decision as to the place or  location of  Mandal headquarter is left to the Government  to  decide and conferment of discretion upon the concerned authority in that  behalf  must  necessarily  leave  the  choice  to  the discretion  of the authority and it would not be proper  for the  courts to interfere with the discretion  so  exercised. This  is not to say that the discretion can be exercised  in an arbitrary or whimsical manner without proper  application of mind or for ulterior or malafide purpose.  If it is shown that  the discretion was so exercised it would certainly  be open to the courts to interfere with the discretion but  not otherwise. [293 H; 294 A-B]      2.  The  absence  of the power in  sub-section  (2)  of Section  4  to  specify  the  headquarter  afresh  does  not necessarily  mean that once the initial constitution of  the Mandal  takes  place and the headquarter is  specified,  the power  is  exhausted,  notwithstanding  section  14  of  the General Clauses Act. If such an interpretation is placed  on the  scheme  of  section 4 of the  Act  neither  the  Deputy Commissioner nor any other authority will thereafter be able to  alter  and  specify  any other  place  as  the  Mandal’s headquarter.   Such  a view would create a vacuum  and  even when  a  genuine need for specifying any  other  headquarter arises,  the  authorities  will  not  be  able  to  exercise power  for want of a specific provision in the Act and  that may  lead to avoidable hardship and complications.   It  is, therefore,  essential that the provision of the Act be  read in  a  manner so as to ensure that such a  vacuum  does  not arise  and the power is retained in the concerned  authority which can be exercised should a genuine need arise. [293  F- H]      J.R. Raghupaty & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 364, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 378  of 1992.      From the Judgment dated 31.7.1991 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1224 of 1990.      Santosh N. Hegde and P.Mahale for the Appellants.      A.K. Subbiah, Ranji Thomas, K.V. Mohan, M Veerappa  and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Respondents.                                                        290      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.      This  appeal  is directed against the judgment  of  the High Court of Karnataka dated 31 st July, 1991, whereby  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Division  Bench  allowed the Writ Appeal setting  aside  the decision  of the learned Single Judge and held,  relying  on the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2564 of 1987 decided on 28th May,  1991,  that  Section  4  (2)  of  the  Karnataka  Zila Parishads, Taluk, Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats  and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as  ‘the Act’)  does not confer any power in the Deputy  Commissioner to  change  the headquarter of any Mandal. It is  this  view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that is put in issue in the present appeal.  For the purpose of disposal of this appeal we may notice a few relevant facts.      The  Act  came into force w.e.f.  14’th  August,  1984. Thereafter, on 16th January, 1986 a notification was issued by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power conferred by Section  4  (1)  of the Act  constituting  a  Mandal,  named Mudiyannur   Mandal,   and  located   its   headquarter   at Mudiyannur.   However, the Divisional  Commissioner  changed the  headquarter  to Uthanpur while exercising  power  under Section  4 (3) of the Act.  Thereupon a writ   petition  was filed  on  14th  December, 1987,  being  Writ  Petition  No. 7685/86,  challenging  the said decision of  the  Divisional Commissioner.  That Writ petition was dismissed by the  High Court  observing:  if the Mandal so desires it  may  pass  a resolution to change the headquarter from the existing place to  another  place whereupon it will be open to  the  Deputy Commissioner to consider if he would like to exercise  power under  Section  4 (2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto  a  fresh resolution  was  passed whereupon  the  Deputy  Commissioner issued  a  notification under Section 4 (2) of the  Act  for change of headquarter which was published in the  Government Gazette of 20th January, 1988.  On the issuance of the  said draft  notification  respondents Nos. 1 to 10 filed  a  writ petition,  being Writ Petition No. 1888/88, challenging  the said  draft  notification.   That  writ  petition  was  also dismissed by the High Court.  The Deputy Commissioner  after considering the resolution of the Mandal and the  objections received   in  response  to  the  draft  notification   from respondents Nos 1 to 10 passed an order declaring Mudiyannur as  the  headquarter of the Mandal.  To give effect  to  his decision, a notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act  was issued  on  23rd  July, 1988  whereby  the  headquarter  was changed  from  Uthanpur  to  Mudiyannur.   Once  again   the respondent  Nos  1 to 10 challenged that notification  by  a revision application filed under Section 4 (3)                                                        291 of  the Act.  The Divisional Commissioner  exercising  power under the said provision dismissed the revision  application whereupon  a  Writ Petition no 77 of 1989 was taken  to  the High  Court.   A  learned Single Judge  of  the  High  Court dismissed  the writ petition.  An appeal was carried to  the Division Bench of the High Court. the Division Bench allowed the  appeal by the impugned judgment dated 31 st July,  1991 following  an  earlier decision in Writ Appeal No.  2564  of 1987  rendered on 28th May, 1991.  It is the correctness  of this decision which we are called upon to examine.      Section  4 (1) as it stood before its amendment on  4th October,  1985 empowered the Deputy Commissioner to  declare any area comprising a village or group of village having the required  population to be a Mandal for the purposes of  the Act.  That sub-section did not carry a provision  empowering the  Deputy Commissioner to specify the headquarter  of  the Mandal. By the amendment brought about in that provision  by Act  3  of  1986 w.e.f. 4th October, 1985,  this  power  was specifically  conferred  on the  Deputy  Commissioner.   The amended Section 4 (1) reads as under :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

        "(1)  Subject to the general or special  orders  of          the Government, the Deputy Commissioner, if in  his          opinion,  it  is  expedient  to  declare  any  area          comprising  a village or group of village having  a          population of not less than eight thousand and  not          more  than  twelve thousand to be  a  Mandal,  may,          after previous publication, declare such area as  a          Mandal  for  the  purposes of  this  Act  and  also          specify its headquarter."      On  a  plain  reading of  this  provision,  it  becomes obvious that the Deputy Commissioner was empowered not  only to  declare a village or group of villages as a  Mandal  but also  to  specify  its headquarter.  We then  come  to  sub- section  (2) which empowers the Deputy Commissioner, at  the request  of the Mandal concerned, or otherwise, to  increase or  decrease the area of any Mandal, by including within  or excluding from such Mandal any village or group of  villages or  alter  the name of any Mandal or declare that  any  area shall cease to be a Mandal after previous publication of the proposal by a notification in the Gazette.  This sub-section confers  power  on the Deputy Commissioner  to  increase  or diminish the area of any Mandal and to alter the name of any such Mandal but it does not in so many words confer power to specify the headquarter of such reconstituted Mandal.   Sub- section (3) of section 4 empowers the Commissioner either on an application made within thirty days from the date of  the notification  by  an aggrieved party or in exercise  of  suo moto  power after giving a reasonable opportunity  of  being heard to the applicant or the Mandals                                                        292 concerned,  revise  the orders of  the  Deputy  Commissioner passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may  be, and may also, if he considers necessary, modify  it as  provided  in the third proviso to subsection  (1)  Every order  so  passed  revising or modifying the  order  of  the Deputy  Commissioner  shall  be published  in  the  Official Gazette. We are not concerned with the third proviso to sub- section 4.      Sub-section  (1) of Section 4, therefore, empowers  the Deputy  Commissioner  to  declare any village  or  group  of villages as a Mandal and to specify its headquarter.   After the constitution of the Mandal and on the headquarter  being specified  under this sub-section, if any change, is  to  be effected  in  the area of the Mandal  either  by  increasing or  reducing its size, the power has to be  exercised  under sub-section  (2) of Section 4 of the Act.  That  sub-section also  empowers the Deputy Commissioner to alter the name  of the  Mandal.  It  was  submitted by  the  counsels  for  the respondents  that while this sub-section in  terms  empowers the Deputy Commissioner to alter  the name of the Mandal, it does not empower him to alter the headquarter of the  Mandal because the headquarter once specified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 must remain unaltered since the Act  designedly does  not  confer any power on any authority  whatsoever  to change the headquarter once specified under sub-section  (1) of Section 4.  This submission was countered by the  learned counsel  for  the  appellant by inviting  our  attention  to Section  14  of  the Karnataka  General  Clauses  Act,  1897 (hereinafter   called  ‘the  General  Clauses  Act’.    that provision reads as under:          "Where  by any Mysore or Karnataka Act  made  after          the   commencement  of  this  Act,  any  power   is          conferred  then  that power may be  exercised  from          time to time as occasion requires."      Counsel for the appellant submitted that once the power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

to  specify  the  headquarter is  conferred  on  the  Deputy Commissioner  by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act  it can  be  exercised from time to time by virtue of  the  said Section  14  if  the occasion so  requires.   He,  therefore submitted  that  this Court should construe  the  scheme  of Section  4 of the Act with the aid of Section 14 in  such  a manner as not to leave a vacuum for the exercise of power if need arises for a change of headquarter.  He submitted  that if,  the  view  taken  by the  High  Court  is  approved,  a situation may arise when even after a change takes place  in the  size of the Mandal area there would be no power  vested in  any authority whatsoever for changing of specifying  the headquarter  of  the reconstituted Mandal which  vacuum  may lead  to avoidable complications.  He, therefore,  submitted that   once   the  legislature  has  invested   the   Deputy Commissioner with the power to                                                        293 specify the headquarter under sub-section (1) of Section  4, subject  to  the  modification which  the  Commissioner  may choose to make under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the power to  alter the headquarter of a Mandal from time to  time  if the  occasion  so requires must be read into it.   We  think there is a considerable force in this submission.      As  pointed  out  earlier, Section  4(1)  empowers  the Deputy Commissioner to do two things, namely, (i) to declare an  area as a Mandal, and (ii) to specify  its  headquarter. The   word   ‘also’  preceding  the   words   ‘specify   its headquarter’  cannot be understood to convey that the  power once  exercised would stand exhausted.  Such a  construction sought  to be placed by counsel for the respondent does  not accord  with  the  language of  the  provision.   It  merely conveys  that  when the Deputy  Commissioner  constitutes  a Mandal  for the first time it will be necessary for  him  to specify  its  headquarter also.  This power to  specify  the headquarter  conferred  on the Deputy  Commissioner  can  be exercised  from time to time as occasion requires by  virtue of Section 14 of the General Clauses Act.  The attention  of the High Court was not drawn to the provision in Section  14 when  it  disposed of the Writ Appeal No. 2564 of  1987  and Writ Petition No 375 of 1989 on 28 th May, 1991.  It is true that the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 can be  exercised  where there is a change in the  area  of  the Mandal  either by addition or reduction in the area.   Under clause  (c)  of  sub-section (2) of  Section  4  the  Deputy Commissioner  is also invested with the power to  alter  the name  of  any Mandal.  The scheme of subsection  (2)  would, therefore, show that when there is any increase or  decrease in  the  area of any Mandal, the  Deputy  Commissioner  may, after   the   previous  publication  of  the   proposal   by notification, exercise that power and rename the Mandal,  if so required.  The absence of the power in sub-section (2) of section  4  to  specify  the  headquarter  afresh  does  not necessarily  mean that once the initial constitution of  the Mandal  takes  place and the headquarter  is  specified  the power  is  exhausted,  notwithstanding  section  14  of  the General Clauses Act.  If such an interpretation is placed on the  scheme  of  section 4 of the  Act  neither  the  Deputy Commissioner nor any other authority will thereafter be able to  alter  and  specify  any other  place  as  the  Mandal’s headquarter.   Such  a view would create a vacuum  and  even when  a  genuine need for specifying any  other  headquarter arises,  the authorities will not be able to exercise  power for  want  of a specific provision in the Act and  that  may lead  to  avoidable  hardship  and  complications.   It  is, therefore, essential that we read the provision of the   Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

in  a  manner so as to ensure that such a  vacuum  does  not arise  and the power is retained in the concerned  authority which can be exercised should a genuine need arise.  In J.R. Raghupathy & Ors. v. State of A.P. others, [1988] 4 SCC  364 this Court observed that the ultimate decision as                                                        294 to  the place or location of Mandal headquarter is  left  to the  Government to decide and conferment of discretion  upon the  concerned  authority in that  behalf  must  necessarily leave the choice to the discretion of the said authority and it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with  the discretion  so  exercised.   This is not  to  say  that  the discretion  can  be exercised in an arbitrary  or  whimsical manner without proper application of mind or for ulterior or malafide purpose.  If it is shown that the discretion was so exercised  it  would  certainly be open  to  the  Courts  to interfere with the discretion but not otherwise.      We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the situation so demands and there is justification for altering the place of headquarter, it would be open to the Deputy  Commissioner to  exercise power under Section 4(1) of the Act  read  with section 14 of the General Clauses Act to meet the situation. We,  therefore,  allow this appeal, set aside  the  impugned order  of the Division Bench of the High court  and  restore the  order  of the learned Single Judge directing  that  the writ  petition,  which gave rise to the writ  appeal,  shall stand dismissed.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. V.P.R.                                       Appeal allowed.                                                        295