http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ZINABHAI RANCHHODJI DARJI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1971

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. HEGDE, K.S. RAY, A.N.

CITATION:  1972 AIR  999            1972 SCR  (2) 686  1972 SCC  (1) 233

ACT: Gujarat  Panchayats Act 1961--s. 310 A--Sub-section 1 of  s. 310A--Its  Scope--Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporations Act 1949--S.   3(3)  and  S.  493--Its  Scope  and   Gujarat Municipalities  Act  1963--S.279(2)--Its  scope  and   their interpretation.

HEADNOTE: In  a Taluka Panchayat election in 1968, Respt.  No.  1  was elected  as  a member and he was elected  president  of  the Taluka Panchayat.  Thereupon, he became ex-officio member of the  Surat  district Panchayat under S. 15(i)(A)(i)  of  the Gujarat  Panchayats  Act 1961.  He  was  ultimately  elected President  of  the Surat District Panchayat.  He  ceased  to hold  his office of President of the Taluka Panchayat.   The district  in  question consists of several Talukas;  one  of such  Talukas  was  called ’C’ Taluka  for  which  a  Taluka Panchayat  was  constituted  under  the  provisions  of  the Panchayat Act.  Two areas known as ’R’ & ’A’ were subject to the  authority of the District Panchayat and the ’C’  Taluka Panchayat  ’R’  had  a Nagar Panchayat and ’A’  bad  a  Gram Panchayat.  In 1970, the State Govt. by a notification under S. 3(3),of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949,  included  the  local areas of ’R’ &  ’A’  within  the limits  of  the  Surat Municipal  Corporation  and  by  this notification,  it  was declared that the local area  of  ’R’ shall cease to be a Nagar and that of ’A’ shall cease to  be a  Gram.  The result was that ’R’ & ’A’ stood excluded  from the limits of ’C’ Taluka Panchayat & the Surat District Pan- chayat  from January 1971 with a direction that the  members of the dissolved Panchayat shall vacate offices and that the Taluka & the District Panchayat shall be reconstituted  with members  specified  in  clause  3 of  the  order  read  with Schedule  1  and 2. Respondent No. 1 having ceased  to  hold office  as  President of the Taluka Panchayat  when  he  was elected  Is President of the District Panchayat,  could  not act as an ex-officio member of reconstituted Surat  District Panchayat  because he had ceased to be an ex-officio  member as  such.   He  was  not an elected  member  of  the  Surat District  Panchayat and was rot appointed a member under  S. 310A (2) (b) of the Panchayat Act.  He, therefore, ceased to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

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 Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging  the validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made by the Development Commissioner.  The High Court allowed the petition  on  the ground that by reason  of’  the  exception contained in S, 310A(10) of the Panchayats Act. Commissioner had  no power to dissolve the panchayat Sub-s. (i)  of  that section.   On  appeal the question arose  provisions  of  S. 310A(10)  would  apply  to  the  Municipal  which  had  been converted into a city with effect from HELD  : (i) The Appellant had no right to dissolve  the  ’C’ Taluka Panchayat under sub-S. (1) because S. 310A(10) of the Panchayat  Act  provides  that  nothing  in  the   foregoing provisions  of  the section shall apply or shall  be  deemed ever  to have applied to the alteration of the limits  of  a district  or  a  taluka by reason of  the  inclusion  in  or exclusion  from the district taluka of any area as a  result of the alteration of the 687 limits  of a municipal borough or conversion of a  municipal borough into a Gram or Nagar or the establishment of or  the alteration of the limits of a contonement. [693 F] (ii) The  Municipal  borough  under  Sec.  310(10)  of   the panchayat  Act,  would have the meaning of the  word  ’City’ within  the  meaning  of  para  1  of  Appendix  IV  of  the Corporation  Act.  Therefore when the ’C’  Taluka  Panchayat was  included into the Municipal borough of Surat which  was declared  as a city, Sub section (1) of Section 310(A)  will have no application. [692 H] (iii)     In the matter of interpretation of enactment 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 enactment. [694 G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1971. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 17th  18th 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil  Application No. 77 of 1971. M.   C. Setalvad and B. D. Sharma, for the Appellant. B.   Sen, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a  judgment of  the  Gujarat High Court in which the  legislation  which came  up  for interpretation has been characterized  by  the High Court as confused and obscure. 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 S. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

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 S. 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  Adajan were included within the limits  of  the Surat  Municipal  Corporation.   This  was  followed  by   a notification dated 688 January  21,  1970  under  S. 9(2)  of  the  Panchayats  Act declaring that the local area of Rander shall cease to be  a Nagar  and  that oil Adajan shall cease to be  a  Gram  with effect  from  February  1, 1970.  The net  result  was  that Rander  and  Adajan  stood excluded from he  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 s. 31O(A) of  the  Panchayats Act  and  delegated to him dissolving  the  Chorashi  Taluka Panchayat and the 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 an ex-officio  member  of  the  reconstituted  Surat   District Panchayat  because 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   s. ’310A(2)(b)  of the, Panchayats 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 Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging  the validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made by the Development Commissioner. Before the High Court two main grounds were taken on  behalf of respondent No. 1. The first was that the Development Com- missioner as a delegate of the State Government had no power to  dissolve  the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat  and  the  Surat District Panchayat under S. 310A(1) of the Panchayat Act  by reason  of the provisions contained in sub-s. (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 S. 310A(1O) of  the Panchayats Act the Development Commissioner had no power  to dissolve the Panchayat in question under sub-s. (1) of  that section.   The  second  point was not gone into  as  it  was considered unnecessary to decide it. There are three enactments the provisions of which will have to be considered in order to decide the controversy  between the,  parties.  The first is the Panchayats Act, the  second is  the  Corporation,-,  Act and the third  is  the  Gujarat Municipalities  Act,  1963, hereinafter referred to  as  the ’Municipalities  Act’.  We may first refer to  the  material provisions of the Panchayats Act.  This Act. 689 according  to the preamble, was enacted to  consolidate  and amend  the  law relating to village panchayat  and  district

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

local  boards  in  the  State of  Gujarat  etc.   Section  1 provides :               S. 1 (1)   This Act may be called the  Gujarat               Panchayats Act, 1961.               (2)   It extends to the whole of the State  of               Gujarat.               (3)   This  section shall come into  force  at               once;   and  all  or  any  of  the   remaining               provisions  of this Act shall come into  force               (in  respect of such class of  Panchayats,  in               such  district and on such dates as the  State               Government   may,  by  notification   in   the               Official Gazette, appoint; and different dates               may  be  appointed  in  respect  of  different               districts and different provisions". By various notifications issued under sub-s. (3) of s. 1 the provisions  of the Panchayats Act were brought  into  force. Section 310A did not exist in the Panchayats Act as enacted. It  was  subsequently introduced by Gujarat Act 26  of  1962 which came into force on August 18, 1962.  By a notification dated  February 7, 1963 under s. 1(3), s. 310A  was  brought into  force  in all the districts of the  State  of  Gujarat except  the  district of Dangs.  Subsection (1) of  s.  310A provides  that when on account of the constitution of a  new district  or Taluka under the Land Revenue Code or  for  any other  reason  the  limits of a district or  a  taluka  are, during  the  term of office of the members of  the  District Panchayat  or  the  ’Taluka  Panchayat  altered  the   State Government may by order dissolve such District Panchayat  or Taluka  Panchayat  from a date specified in  the  order  and direct  reconstitution  of  the District  Panchayat  or  the Taluka   Panchayat  or  the  establishment  of  a   District Panchayat  or Taluka Panchayat for a new district or  a  new taluka which has been constituted.  Sub-s. (1) which was not to  be  found in the original section  was  introduced  with retrospective effect by Gujarat Act 7 of 1966.  According to sub-s.  (10)  nothing  in the foregoing  provisions  of  the section shall apply or shall be deemed ever to have  applied to the alteration of the limits of a district or a taluka by reason of the inclusion in or exclusion from the district or taluka  of  any area as a result of the  alteration  of  the limits  of a municipal borough or conversion of a  municipal borough into a Gram or Nagar or the establishment of or  the alteration  of the limits of a cantonment.   An  Explanation was added to the sub-section to the following effect               "EXPLANATION.-Municipal  borough  if  means  a               municipal borough constituted or deemed to  be               constituted  under the Gujarat  Municipalities               Act, 1963". 690 Section 10 of the Panchayats Act provides for the  formation of  districts  and  talukas for the  purpose  of  that  Act. According  to  s.  8(2) a Taluka  Panchayat  or  a  District Panchayat  shall have no authority over that portion of  the area in the taluka or the district which for the time  being is within the limits of a city, municipal borough, municipal district, notified area or cantonment. The  Corporations  Act  was enacted on  December  29,  1949. Section  3  (1)  provides that the local  areas  within  the limits  specified  by the State Government  by  notification shall  constitute the city of Ahmedabad.   The  notification constituting  the city and a municipal  corporation  thereof came into force on July 1, 1950.  Section 3(2) empowers  the State  Government by a notification to constitute any  other local area lying within such limits as are specified to be a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

City.   Section  490  provides  that  the  Bombay   District Municipalities  Act 1901, the Bombay Municipal Boroughs  Act 1925 and the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1923 shall  cease to apply except as provided in the Act to any area  included in  the  city.   According  to s.  493  the,  provisions  of Appendix   IV  shall  apply  to  the  constitution  of   the Corporation and other matters specified therein.  Para 1  of Part 1 of that Appendix is in the following terms :               "References  in any enactment other  than  the               Bombay  District  Municipal  Act,  1901,   the               Bombay  Municipal Boroughs Act 1925,  and  the               Bombay  Local Fund Audit Act 1930 in force  on               the  date immediately preceding the  appointed               day  in  a  City or in  any  rule,  order,  or               notification made or issued thereunder and  in               force  on  such  date  in  the  said  City  to               municipal   districts   municipal    boroughs,               municipalities or borough municipalities  con-               stituted  under the Bombay District  Municipal               Act 1901 or the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act,               1925,  shall,  unless  a  different  intention               appears,  be  construed as references  to  the               City  or to the Corporation of the said  City,               as the case may be, and such enactment,  rule,               order or notification shall apply to the  said               City or Corporation". The  expression "appointed day" is defined by S.  2(2).   It means with reference to any local area the day on which such area is constituted the city of Ahmedabad or any other  city under  S.  3  It  may be  mentioned  that  Surat  which  was originally  a municipal borough was constituted a city  with effect  from  October  1, 1966 by means  of  a  notification issued under s. 3(2) of the Corporations Act. Prior to the enactment of the Municipalities Act there  were in  force  in  the  State of  Gujarat  the  Bombay  District Municipalities  Act 1901 and the Bombay  Municipal  Boroughs Act 1925.  The first enactment provided for the constitution of a municipal district 691 and  a  municipality  for, each such  district;  the  second enactment  provided  for  the constitution  of  a  municipal borough  and a borough municipality for each  such  borough. By  s. 279(1) of the Municipalities Act these  two  statutes were repealed.  Section 279(2) of the aforesaid Act made the following provisions :               "(2)  Notwithstanding the repeal of  the  said               Acts,-               (i)   any  local area declared to be either  a               municipal   borough  or   municipal   district               immediately before the date on which this  Act               comes  into force (hereinafter referred to  as               "the said date") shall be deemed to be a muni-               cipal borough under this Act;               (ii)  the municipalities constituted under the               said  Acts  immediately before the  said  date               (hereinafter  called the old  municipalities")               shall  be deemed to be municipalities  of  the               respective boroughs (hereinafter  respectively               called  "the new municipalities" and "the  new               boroughs");               (iii)................................ 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Municipalities  Act 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. 310A(10) would  be attracted by virtue of s. 493 read with Appendix IV, Para  1 of the Corporations Act. The approach of the High Court appears to have been that the word ’district’ in s. 1(3) must me-an 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 692 respect of different districts and different provisions From this the High Court concluded that the word "district" in S. 1(3)  must mean a revenue district.  The main  reason  which prevailed  with the High Court was that the word  "district" in  that  provision  could not be construed to  refer  to  a district  which  was yet to be formed under s. 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 the 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               Panchayats 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 a  revenue  village or group of revenue villages  to be  a Nagar  or a Gram.  It was only if S. 9 was in force  in  the local  area  comprising  such revenue village  or  group  of revenue  villages  that the 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 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 1 of Appendix IV in the Corporation Act lays down  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

reference  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.  It follows that "municipal borough" in S. 310A(10) of the Panchayats Act would have the meaning  of the word "City". 693 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  that  s. 310A(10)  of the Panchayats Act was 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 by notification appoint.  The provisions  of the  Panchayats  Act could thus be made applicable  only  in respect  of  panchayats.  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. 310A shall come into force in all the districts of the State of Gujarat except the district of Dangs. The principal argument that has been addressed to us is that the provisions contained in Appendix IV of the  Corporations Act referred to above clearly employ the language "unless  a different intention appears".  A great deal of emphasis  has been  laid on the Explanation appearing in s. 310A in  which municipal  borough is confined only to a  municipal  borough constituted   or   deemed  to  be  constituted   under   the Municipalities  Act.  The omission of the word  "city"  from the Explanation, it is said, is significant and it would  be wholly  impermeable to travel beyond the  Explanation  which contains  the  key  to the meaning of  the  word  "municipal borough"  as employed in the sub-section.  It also  shows  a contrary intention which rules out the applicability of Para 1  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.  310A  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  1  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 subsection.  as  also the Explanation.  But  it  is  equally possible  that the applicability of Appendix IV (Para 1)  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 Panchayats 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

or  a Nagar but that would only mean that no occasion  would arise to invoke the words 694 "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 Nagar.  There is  a  good deal  of force in the following reasoning of the High  Court with regard to the applicability of paragraph 1 of  Appendix IV:               "The principle underlying Paragraph 1 seems to               be  that where an enactment was in force in  a               local  area and applied in relation to it,  it               must  continue to apply  notwithstanding  that               the  local area is converted from a  municipal               borough into a City.  Here in the present case                             if the local area of Surat had continu ed to  be               a  municipal  borough which it was  when  sub-               section (1 0) of section 310A came into  force               and  the alteration of the limits of  Chorashi               Taluka and Surat District had taken place as a               result of the inclusion of Brander and  Adajan               in  the  limits of the  Municipal  Borough  of               Surat, sub-section (10) of section 310A  would               have  applied, then is there any  reason  from               the  point  of view of Section  310A  why  the               Legislature   should  have  intended  that   a               different consequence shall ensue if the  same               alteration  takes  place at a  time  when  the               Surat Municipal Borough is converted into  the               City of Surat.  There is no conceivable reason               why the consequences which would have followed               from the alteration of the limits of the local               area of Surat when it was a Municipal  Borough               should  not  follow when the  same  alteration               takes  place in the limits of the  same  local               area  of Surat after it is constituted into  a               City". 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. In  the  result this appeal fails and it is  dismissed  with costs S.C. Appeal dismissed. 695