Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.C. Khare
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Raghubar Dayal
  • A.C.J
  • Srivastava, J.
Acts
  • sub-5(i) of Section 38 of the U.P Town Areas Act, extending the provisions of Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act, 1916,
  • provisions of the Town Areas Act and also of Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of Section 87-A of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • provision similar to Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act
  • Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act.10.
  • provisions of Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act.38.
  • provisions of Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • Act, and that Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • well.17. Section 5 sub-Section (2) of the Town Areas Act
  • provisions of cl. (c) sub-section (2). Section 8-A, sub-s. (3)
  • provision in Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of Section 49 of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of the Town Areas Act and Section 87-A
  • 22. Section 36, sub-section (2) of the Town Areas Act
  • Section 38 sub-section (1) of the Town Areas Act.39.
  • Section 1, sub-Section (2) of the Municipalities Act,
  • Sections 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act,
  • Sections 47-A and 87-A of the Municipalities Act
  • Section 38, sub-Section (i) of the Town Areas Act.
  • member.20. Section 7-B of the Town Areas Act
  • clauses of Section 5 of the Town Areas Act
  • deliberations.28. Sub-section (7) of S. 87-A
  • provisions of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • Section 49 of the Municipalities Act
  • Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act
  • Section 38 of the Town Areas Act
  • Act. Sub-section (2) of S. 87-A
  • Committee.26. Sub-section (3)
  • sub-section (2) of S. 5.24.
  • U.P Municipalities Act
  • Act. Section 38, sub-s. (i)
  • alone.29. Sub-section (9)
  • Section 2, sub-s. (1)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.C. Khare
  • Standing Counsel
Judges
  • Raghubar Dayal
  • A.C.J
  • Srivastava, J.
Acts
  • sub-5(i) of Section 38 of the U.P Town Areas Act, extending the provisions of Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act, 1916,
  • provisions of the Town Areas Act and also of Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of Section 87-A of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • provision similar to Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act
  • Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act.10.
  • provisions of Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act.38.
  • provisions of Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • Act, and that Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • well.17. Section 5 sub-Section (2) of the Town Areas Act
  • provisions of cl. (c) sub-section (2). Section 8-A, sub-s. (3)
  • provision in Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of Section 49 of the Municipalities Act
  • provisions of the Town Areas Act and Section 87-A
  • 22. Section 36, sub-section (2) of the Town Areas Act
  • Section 38 sub-section (1) of the Town Areas Act.39.
  • Section 1, sub-Section (2) of the Municipalities Act,
  • Sections 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act,
  • Sections 47-A and 87-A of the Municipalities Act
  • Section 38, sub-Section (i) of the Town Areas Act.
  • member.20. Section 7-B of the Town Areas Act
  • clauses of Section 5 of the Town Areas Act
  • deliberations.28. Sub-section (7) of S. 87-A
  • provisions of the U.P Municipalities Act
  • Section 49 of the Municipalities Act
  • Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act
  • Section 38 of the Town Areas Act
  • Act. Sub-section (2) of S. 87-A
  • Committee.26. Sub-section (3)
  • sub-section (2) of S. 5.24.
  • U.P Municipalities Act
  • Act. Section 38, sub-s. (i)
  • alone.29. Sub-section (9)
  • Section 2, sub-s. (1)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was brought by Abdul Aziz against an order rejecting his writ petition. The writ petition sought a writ of mandamus, or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the District Magistrate of Etawah (opposite party No. 2) from interfering with the appellant's functioning as Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Jaswantnagar. The claimed interference arose from a non-confidence resolution passed by the Town Area Committee on 2 August 1956. The U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, did not itself contain provisions dealing with the passing of such a non-confidence resolution or its consequences. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh, exercising powers under Section 38 (sub-section (i)) of the U.P. Town Areas Act, issued a notification extending Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, to the Town Areas. The appellant challenged the validity of that extension and the consequences resulting from the resolution passed on 2 August 1956.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether Section 38 of the U.P. Town Areas Act authorised the Governor to extend provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act (or parts thereof) to Town Areas, i.e., whether the Governor could extend provisions of the Municipalities Act to Town Areas under Section 38.
  2. Whether the Governor, in extending Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act to Town Areas, exceeded the power conferred by Section 38(1) of the Town Areas Act — in particular whether the omission of Section 49 (which deems the President to be an ex officio member) or other modifications altered the policy of the provisions so as to be beyond the Governor's power.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appellant contended that Section 38 of the Town Areas Act did not authorise the Governor to extend provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act to Town Areas; accordingly, the Governor's notification extending provisions of the Municipalities Act was invalid.
  • The appellant argued that the Governor exceeded the power vested by Section 38(1) by extending Sections 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act while omitting Section 49; the omission, it was contended, altered the policy behind those provisions because under Section 49 the President (in a municipality) is an ex officio member of the Municipal Board and would therefore have participatory rights (for example, notice and voting) which the Chairman of a Town Area Committee would lack if Section 49 were not extended.
  • The appellant relied on the decision in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P (1957 All LJ 114 (B)) and submissions that, under the Town Areas Act, the Chairman is not a "member" of the Committee and therefore could not participate in proceedings under Section 87-A as extended.

The opinion does not set out a detailed, separate account of the respondent's or the State's oral submissions; the court's analysis addresses and rejects the appellant's contentions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, AIR 1954 SC 569 Interpreted a provision similar to Section 38(i) as permitting modification or restriction of an enactment being extended only so far as such alteration does not affect the general policy behind that enactment in the main Act. The court considered this authority in relation to the appellant's contention that omission of Section 49 and other modifications altered the policy of Sections 87-A and 47-A when extended. The court concluded that, on its interpretation (including that the Chairman is a "member"), no departure from the underlying policy occurred and therefore the Governor had not exceeded his power.
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P, 1957 All LJ 114 (B) Held (by the learned judge in that decision) that the Chairman of a Town Area was not a member of the Committee within the meaning of provisions like Section 87-A as extended. The court expressly disagreed with this view. It examined the Town Areas Act and provisions of Section 87-A as extended and held that the Chairman is included within the expression "members of the Committee" for the purposes of those provisions.
Sliamrao Vishnu v. District Magistrate Thana, AIR 1957 SC 23 Established that the same words in a statute generally have the same meaning but can have different meanings in different provisions of the same statute. The court invoked this principle while examining the meaning of "member" and "Committee" across different provisions, and used it to justify a contextual interpretation leading to the conclusion that "members of the Committee" in Section 87-A as extended includes the Chairman.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court systematically addressed the appellant's two principal contentions and the subsidiary argument that the Chairman is not a "member" of the Committee for purposes of Section 87-A as extended.

Authority to extend enactments (Section 38):

  • The court rejected the contention that the Municipalities Act could not be the subject of extension under Section 38. It emphasised that the term "enactment" in Section 38(1) can refer to a complete Act or to particular provisions within an Act; therefore the Governor could extend selected provisions (for example, Sections 87-A and 47-A) rather than the entire Municipalities Act.
  • The court explained that the Municipalities Act's extension to the State by Section 1(2) did not necessarily mean all its provisions were automatically enforceable everywhere; the Governor's notification could make particular provisions enforceable in Town Areas.

Whether the Governor exceeded power by omitting Section 49 or otherwise modifying provisions:

  • The appellant relied on Rajnarain Singh to argue that an extending authority cannot make alterations that change the underlying policy of the enactment. The court accepted the principle but found no such change of policy here.
  • The court analysed the practical effect of omitting Section 49 (the Municipalities Act provision deeming the President an ex officio member) and concluded that the omission did not operate to change the essential policy behind Sections 87-A and 47-A when applied to Town Areas. The representation right available to a President under Section 47-A was held to be of little practical consequence and did not substantially improve the President's position; thus its non-extension did not amount to impermissible modification of policy.

Whether the Chairman is a "member" of the Committee for purposes of Section 87-A as extended:

  • The court rejected the view (adopted in Ramji Lal Modi) that "members" should be read as meaning only elected members and that the Chairman is not a member for purposes of Section 87-A as extended.
  • The court relied on a contextual reading of various statutory provisions in the Town Areas Act and the applied provisions of Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act. In particular, it analysed:
    • Section 5(2) (composition of the Committee: "(a) the Chairman; and (b) the elected members...") — showing the Chairman is an integral part of the Committee;
    • Section 2(1) (an act to be the act of the Committee when done with consent of a majority of "all such members for the time being serving on the Committee") — which the court said must include the Chairman;
    • Section 7-B (liability of "every member of a Committee" for loss or misapplication) — omission of the Chairman from "member" would leave the Chairman without liability which the court found unreasonable;
    • Section 36(2) (consequences of supersession of a Committee: "all members of the Committee shall... vacate their offices") — the scheme contemplates the entire Committee, including Chairman, vacating office on supersession;
    • Provisions in Section 87-A as applied: subsections concerning notice (s.87-A(2) and (3)), convening and presiding of meetings (s.87-A(7)), and voting (s.87-A(9)) — which, when read as a whole, indicate the meeting is of the Committee (including the Chairman) and that votes are to be cast by the Committee (including the Chairman).
  • The court observed that if the Legislature intended to restrict "members" to elected members only, it would have used the adjective 'elected' where that limited meaning was intended; the absence of that qualification supported a broader meaning.
  • Relying on the principle (from Sliamrao Vishnu) that identical words may have different meanings depending on context, the court concluded that in Section 87-A as extended, "members of the Committee" includes the Chairman.

Conclusion of analysis: On these bases the court held that (a) the Governor validly extended Sections 87-A and 47-A (with some modification) under Section 38(1); (b) the omission of Section 49 did not amount to an impermissible change of policy; and (c) the Chairman is included among "members of the Committee" for purposes of the procedural provisions of Section 87-A as extended.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court dismissed the appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

  • The order of the learned Single Judge (which rejected the appellant's writ petition) was affirmed; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
  • The Governor's notification dated May 2, 1956 (No. 743-A/IX-A-471-T-54) extending Sections 47-A and 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act to the Town Areas, with the modifications made, was held to be within the power conferred by Section 38(1) of the Town Areas Act.
  • The court held that the Chairman of a Town Area Committee is included in the expression "members of the Committee" as used in Section 87-A as extended, and accordingly may be subject to the procedure and consequences provided by those provisions.

Broader implications: The opinion does not elaborate on broader policy changes or purport to lay down a new, generalized precedent beyond the specific holdings described above. The court did not consider the merits of the underlying administrative matter; it confined itself to questions of statutory power and interpretation and dismissed the appeal without entering upon merits.

Signed / Delivered: Raghubar Dayal, A.C.J. — Appeal dismissed.
Show full summary ...

    Abdul Aziz v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

    Raghubar Dayal, A.C.J:— This is an appeal by Abdul Aziz against the rejection of his writ petition praying the issue of a writ of mandums or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate of Etawah, opposite party No. 2, not to, in any manner, interfere with the applicant's functioning as Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Jaswantnagar, on the basis of the resolution passed on the 2nd August 1956. This resolution was a non-confidence resolution passed by the Town Area Committee against the appellant who was the Chairman of that Committee.

    2. The U.P Town Areas Act, 1914, does not contain any provision for the passing of such a resolution by the Committee, and for the consequences which are to follow if such a resolution is passed. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification, in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-5(i) of Section 38 of the U.P Town Areas Act, extending the provisions of Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act, 1916, to all the Town Areas in Uttar Pradesh. These sections deal with the procedure to be followed for the passing of such a non-confidence motion against the Chairman and the consequences of the passing of such a resolution by the Committee. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged in support of the appeal two of the three points he had urged before the learned single Judge. They are that Section 38 of the Town Areas Act did not authorise the Governor to extend the provisions of the U.P Municipalities Act to the Town Areas, and that the power exercised by the Governor in extending the provisions of the aforesaid section to the Town Areas exceeded the power he possessed under Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act.

    3. We do not agree with either of these two contentions.

    4. In support of the first contention two submissions have been made. One is that the U.P Municipalities Act extended to the State by virtue of Section 1, sub-Section (2) of the Municipalities Act, and that what is already extended to the Town Areas could not be extended a second time in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 38, sub-Section (i) of the Town Areas Act. The extension of the Municipalities Act to the whole of Uttar Pradesh does not mean, specially in view of the provisions of that Act itself, that all its provisions got actually enforced in the entire Uttar Pradesh merely on the coming into force of the Act on the 1st day of July 1916.

    5. The Act came into force and enabled the Governor to take certain actions. The first object was to declare certain areas as Municipalities. On that being done certain provisions of the Act were to come into force in the areas so declared. It is, therefore, possible that the Act may be extended to the Town Areas in the sense that its provisions are made enforcible in those areas. Further, it is not the U.P Municipalities Act or any other Act as such which alone comes within the purview of sec-S. 38(i) of the Town Areas Act. Under it certain ‘enactments’ can be extended to the Town Areas.

    6. The expression ‘enactment’ applies not only to a complete Act but also to the various provisions in an Act. Section 38, sub-s. (i) therefore contemplates the extension to the Town Areas of some of the provisions of certain Acts instead of the entire Acts if the Governor so desires. It is the provisions of two such enactments, that is Sections 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act, which have been extended to the Town Areas by the Governor in 1956. We think that he could extend these provisions to the Town Areas in the above sense.

    7. The other submission in this connection was that S. 38(i) may have been utilised for extending to Town Areas certain provisions of Acts not in force in the municipalities but under it the provisions of the Municipalities Act itself could not be extended to the Town Areas as that Act itself created the municipalities.

    8. The Municipalities Act itself has not been exempted from the scope of Section 38, sub-Section (i) of the Town Areas Act. There seems to be no reason why the language of Section 38, sub-Section (i) of the Town Areas Act, should be so narrowly interpreted as to exclude the Municipalities Act Itself from the Acts or enactments which can be extended to the Town Areas under that provision.

    9. The second contention about the Governor exceeding the powers given by Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act is put thus. In Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, AIR 1954 SC 569 (A), a provision similar to Section 38(i) of the Town Areas Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court as empowering the Government to modify or restrict an enactment it was extending only if the alteration made did not affect the general policy behind that enactment in the main Act. It is contended that the Governor has not extended the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act to the Town Areas and has therefore brought about a change in the policy underlying the operation of Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U.P Municipalities Act.

    10. The contention really is that by Section 49 of the Municipalities Act the President of a Municipality is to be deemed an ex-officio member of the Municipal Board. In the absence of a corresponding provision either in the Town Areas Act or in the provisions extended to the Town Areas, the Chairman of the Town Area Committee is not a member of that Committee. He cannot therefore partake in the proceedings of the Committee in which the resolution of non-confidence is moved and adopted in accordance with the provisions of S. 87-A as extended to the Town Areas.

    11. The Chairman, therefore, is unable to explain his position. It was an essential part of the provisions of the Municipalities Act that the President of a Municipal Board should have such an occasion. He can have such an occasion only if he is a member of the Board and can in that capacity take part in the meeting in which the resolution of no-confidence is adopted.

    12. Reliance for the submission that a Chairman is not a member of the Town Area Committee is placed on the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State Of U.P, 1957 All LJ 114 (B). Of course, the same view has been taken by the same learned Judge in disposing of the writ petition under appeal. We regret we are unable to share this view. We are of opinion that the Chairman of a Committee is a member of the Committee as contemplated by that expression in S. 87-A as extended.

    13. The considerations which weighed with the learned Judge in Ramji Lal's case (B) in holding that the Chairman of the Town Area was not a member of the Committee within the meaning of such expression in S. 87-A as extended to the Town Areas in the State were that ‘Chairman’ and ‘members’ had been mentioned in separate clauses of Section 5 of the Town Areas Act showing that the word ‘member’ included only the persons elected as members, that the rights and liabilities of a President or Chairman and the members had been separately dealt with in the Municipalities Act as well as the Town Areas Act, and that Section 49 of the U.P Municipalities Act specifically mentioned that the President would be an ex-officio member of the Board if he was not already a member indicating thereby that but for that provision, the President, if not elected as a member to the Municipal Board, could not have been a member of the Municipal Board.

    14. It can certainly be argued that Section 49 of the Municipalities Act will become redundant if the other provisions make it clear that the President is a member of the Board. Section 49 may, however have been enacted only as a matter of abundant caution. In any case, it does not necessarily follow from the provisions of Section 49 of the Municipalities Act that the President would not have been a member of the Board but for that provision if in view of other provisions of the Act he should be so considered.

    15. The simple word ‘member’, when used with reference to a body, would mean each person constituting that particular body. Some of such persons may have other capacities also. One may be a President or Chairman, another may be a Secretary and a third may be a convenor. Among the members there may be members who have been elected, there may be members who have been nominated, there may be members who are co-opted to represent particular interests, but all such persons would be members of that particular body. The word ‘member’ is not defined either in the Municipalities Act or in the Town Areas Act. So far as the later Act is concerned, we see no good reason to limit such a simple expression to those persons only who have been elected as members of the Town Area Committee.

    16. Apart from this consideration the various provisions of the Town Areas Act and Section 87-A as applied to the Town Areas Act lead to the conclusion that the expression ‘members of the Committee’ includes the Chairman of the Committee as well.

    17. Section 5 sub-Section (2) of the Town Areas Act is:

    “The Committee shall consist of—

    (a) the Chairman; and

    (b) the elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen, as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.”

    18. It is clear and it is not disputed for the appellant that the Chairman, though mentioned in cl. (a) and not in cl. (b), is an integral part of the Committee. It is not alleged that the Committee consists of the elected members only. Section 2, sub-s. (1) is:

    “An act shall be deemed to be the act of a Committee when it is done with the previous consent of, or of a majority of, all such members for the time being serving on the Committee as are not incapacitated by illness or absence from the Town area from signifying their consent thereto.”

    19. It appears to be obvious that the expression “all such members for the time being serving on the Committee” must include the Chairman. The Chairman is not deprived of the power of voting at the meetings of the Committee. That is his normal function as Chairman of the Committee. If we interpret the expression “members of the Committee” to mean only elected members, it would follow that the Chairman's vote is not to be counted in determining an act of the Committee. In actual practice, we should suppose, the Chairman's view may have a more persuasive effect on the other members of the Committee than the view expressed by any other member.

    20. Section 7-B of the Town Areas Act is:

    “Every member of a Committee shall be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to the Committee if such loss, waste or mis-application is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct while a member of the Committee and a suit for compensation may be instituted against him by the Committee with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or by the State Government.”

    21. Unless the Chairman is to be included in the expression ‘members of the Committee’, he would not be liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of the Committee's money or property contemplated by the section, as there is no other provision with respect to the liability of the Chairman in the Town Areas Act. It cannot be contemplated that the Legislature took care to lay down the liability of a mere member and not the liability of a Chairman who may be more responsible for the application of money or the property of the Committee and consequently had more occasions for misapplying them.

    22. Section 36, sub-section (2) of the Town Areas Act speaks of the consequences which shall ensue in case a Town Area Committee is superseded by the State Government in the exercise of power given under sub-s. (1) of that section. Sub-section (2) is:

    “When a Committee is so superseded, the following consequences shall ensue:

    (a) all members of the Committee shall as from the date of the order vacate their offices as such members;

    (b) all powers and duties of the Committee may, during the period of supersession be exercised and performed by the prescribed authority or if none is appointed by the District Magistrate;

    (c) on the expiration of the period of supersession specified in the order the Committee shall be reconstituted as though the term fixed under S. 6 had expired and the persons who vacated their offices under cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) shall not be deemed disqualified for being members.”

    23. The entire Committee is found to be at fault by the State Government before it orders its supersession. It does not stand to reason that only the elected members of the Committee are to vacate their offices and not the Chairman of the Committee also. If the expression ‘members of a Committee’ does not include a Chairman as such, that would be the result in view of the expression used in cl. (a) of this sub-section. Clause (c) speaks of the reconstitution of the Committee and contemplates a fresh election of the Chairman of the Committee as he is an integral part of the Committee in view of sub-section (2) of S. 5.

    24. If the Chairman had not vacated his office on the supersession of the Committee there would be no occasion for a fresh election and therefore the Committee which should mean the entire Committee could not be reconstituted in compliance of the provisions of cl. (c) sub-section (2). Section 8-A, sub-s. (3) does not speak of vacancy for the office of the Chairman on the supersession of the Committee and therefore it should follow that his office is vacated by virtue of the terms of cl. (a) sub-s. (2) of S. 36.

    25. Lastly, we may refer to the provisions of Section 87-A of the U.P Municipalities Act as applied to the Town Areas Act. Sub-section (2) of S. 87-A provides about the written notice of intention to make a motion of non-confidence in its Chairman by a certain number of members of the Committee.

    26. Sub-section (3) provides for the convening of a meeting by the District Magistrate and enjoins upon him to send by registered post a notice of such a meeting to every member of the Committee. It does not speak of the sending of the notice of the meeting to the Chairman. It should follow, therefore, that if the expression “member of the Committee” be given the restricted meaning as suggested by the appellant, the Chairman of the Committee would receive no notice of the meeting.

    27. In the nature of things the Chairman, the person against whom a resolution of non-confidence is to be passed, is the most interested person in the proceedings of the meeting. The resolution affects his reputation and honour. It is reasonable that the Chairman of the Committee attends such a meeting and takes part in its deliberations.

    28. Sub-section (7) of S. 87-A provides as to how the meeting should commence and lays down that the Judicial Officer who is to preside at the meeting shall read to the Committee the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened and declare it to be open for discussion. This is a clear indication of the fact that the meeting is of the Committee, which expression includes the Chairman and the elected members and not the elected members alone.

    29. Sub-section (9) provides for the termination of the discussion on the motion and for the voting thereupon and lays down that upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of three hours, whichever the case may be, the motion shall be put to the vote of the “committee”. Again, this is a clear indication that the Chairman of the Committee is free to vote on the motion as the expression “committee” does include him.

    30. It is contended for the appellant that in sub-s. (2) of S. 87-A the expression “total number of members of the Committee” refers to the number of the elected members only. In view of the various other indications from the other provisions of this S. 87-A, we are unable to accept this contention and give such a limited meaning to this expression.

    31. If this Legislature really wanted the votes of the elected members alone to be considered in this connection, it would easily use the word ‘elected’ before the word ‘members’, specially when it used the expression ‘Committee’ in such provisions of the section where the reference was to the nature of the meeting and the persons who were to vote on the motion.

    32. It is true that the Town Areas Act mentions only members in those sections dealing with matters concerning the members only, and also mentions both expressions ‘members’ and ‘Chairman’ in such sections where they relate to the matters concerning both the members and the Chairman. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Chairman is not to be included in the expression “members of the Committee” in such other sections whose provisions clearly indicate that the Chairman is included in that expression.

    33. The same words in a statute generally have I the same meaning whenever used’ in that statute, but they can also have different meanings in different provisions of the same statute as laid down in Sliamrao Vishnu v. District Magistrate Thana, (S) AIR 1957 SC 23 (C). We have considered the various provisions of the Town Areas Act and also of Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act as extended to the Town Areas and are of opinion that in the latter provision the expression “members of the Committee” includes the Chairman of the Committee.

    34. In view of this opinion of ours, Section 87-A as applied to the Town Areas Act does not make any departure from the policy behind the enactment of that section of the Municipalities Act, even though Section 49 of the Municipalities Act has not been extended to Town Areas along with S. 87-A.

    35. Another submission in support of the contention that the policy underlying the Municipalities Act has been changed when extending Sections 87-A and 47-A of the Municipalities Act to the Town Areas is that the extended S. 47-A does not give the Chairman of the Town Area Committee against whom a resolution of non-confidence has been passed any option to represent to the State Government that the committee be dissolved, though such an option is possessed by the President of the Municipal Board under S. 47-A, sub-s. (1), Cl. (a).

    36. We do not think that such a provision in Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act is such a matter of policy behind the provisions of that section as to render its omission in Section 47-A as extended to the Town Areas Act a modification beyond the powers of the Governor. There was no practical effect of such a representation. The resolution of non-confidence passed by a Municipal Board had its full operation. The resident had to cease working after three days of the passing of the resolution. He could, of course, represent to the State Government for the dissolution of the Board but the State Government could accept or reject that representation.

    37. Any way, as already mentioned, such a representation in no way improves the position of the President or gives him any right of some substance. If such an opportunity is not given to the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, no substantial deviation can be said to have been made, in our opinion, from the underlying policy behind the provisions of Section 47-A of the Municipalities Act.

    38. We are, therefore, of opinion that the extension of Sections 47-A and 87-A of the Municipalities Act with some modification by the Governor by his notification No. 743-A/IX-A-471-T-54 dated May 2, 1956 to the Town Areas was not beyond the powers given to him by Section 38 sub-section (1) of the Town Areas Act.

    39. Nothing has been said at the bar with respect to the merits of the matter. We, therefore, agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.

    V.S.B

    40. Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Abdul Aziz v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
    (Jul 25, 1957)