# Gyan Pratap Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 384
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-21
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 296 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, Cj. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyan-pratap-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40458
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947-rule 165
(4) and (5)- Prohibition on appointment
of certain relatives of village Pradhan-as
mentioned in S.-165-Selection of the
appellant
cancelled-only
reasons
for
cancellation disclosed-at that material
time the appellant was the son of the
brother in laws son of a lady village
Pradhan-explanation 'nephew'-does not
include a brother in law's son-a legal
restricted meaning of nephew should be
given
rather
than
a
Special
wide
meaning-prohibition has to be clear and
accurate-accordingly-cancellation
of
appointment held-illegal.

Held: Para 14

On the basis of these materials we have
to
take
a
decision
whether
the
explanation to Rules 165 prohibits a
brother-in-law's son by prohibiting a
nephew. We are unable to opine that in
that explanation nephew includes a
brother-in-law's son. We give a legally
restricted meaning to the word nephew
rather than give it a socially wide
meaning; where people's rights are
involved and curtailment of the eligibility
to
appointment
in
a
Panchayat
is
concerned, the prohibition has to be
clear and accurate before a person can
be barred from entering into a Panchayat
service.

## Text

384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
committed by the revisional court in
allowing the revision filed by the
respondent no. 2. I do not filed any merit
in the writ petition. The writ petition is
dismissed. Parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2005

BEFORE
HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, CJ.
HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 296 of 2005

Gyan Pratap Singh

...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dr. R. Dwivedi
Sri V.S. Dwivedi
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A. Kumar
S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947-rule 165
(4) and (5)- Prohibition on appointment
of certain relatives of village Pradhan-as
mentioned in S.-165-Selection of the
appellant
cancelled-only
reasons
for
cancellation disclosed-at that material
time the appellant was the son of the
brother in laws son of a lady village
Pradhan-explanation 'nephew'-does not
include a brother in law's son-a legal
restricted meaning of nephew should be
given
rather
than
a
Special
wide
meaning-prohibition has to be clear and
accurate-accordingly-cancellation
of
appointment held-illegal.

Held: Para 14

On the basis of these materials we have
to
take
a
decision
whether
the
explanation to Rules 165 prohibits a
brother-in-law's son by prohibiting a
nephew. We are unable to opine that in
that explanation nephew includes a
brother-in-law's son. We give a legally
restricted meaning to the word nephew
rather than give it a socially wide
meaning; where people's rights are
involved and curtailment of the eligibility
to
appointment
in
a
Panchayat
is
concerned, the prohibition has to be
clear and accurate before a person can
be barred from entering into a Panchayat
service.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ)

1. This appeal is taken up and
disposed of.

2. It is from an order of an Hon'ble
Single Judge dated 10.2.2005 wherein his
Lordship has quashed the selection and
appointment of one Gyan Pratap Singh,
who was respondent no. 5 in the Court
below. The only reason for quashing is his
relationship to the Village Pradhan. It is
an admitted case that the appellant at the
material time was the husband's brother's
son, i.e. the brother-in-law's son of the
Village Pradhan, who was a lady.

3. The only provision of law which
is material for our consideration, is the
explanation of sub-rule (5) of Rule 165 of
the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. Subrule (4) prohibits the appointment of a
Panchayat member's ''Relation" to any
post (menial servants excepted).

The said explanation is set out
below:-
"Explanation--The word "relation"
in the proviso means father, grand-father,
father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle,
2 All] Gyan Pratap Singh V. The State of U.P. and others

 385
son,
grandson,
son-in-law,
brother,
nephew,
first
cousin,
brother-in-law,
sister's husband, wife, wife's brother, son
of nephew"

4. We are of the clear opinion that
the explanation is not illustrative but
exhaustive.
The
wording
of
the
explanation indicates that the wording
''relation' is restricted in its meaning to the
particular
relationships
which
are
mentioned in the explanation and not
otherwise. It would not be open to the
Court to find out different degrees or
items of prohibition, which are not
mentioned in the Rule.

5. A simple reading of the
explanation shows that although brotherin-law is a prohibited relation, brother-inlaw's son is not a prohibited relation.

6. The only submission, which
deserves any mention from the side of the
respondents, is that brother-in-law's son is
a nephew and, therefore, a prohibited
relationship.

7. We are unable to accede. What a
nephew is, is best understood by looking
at a helpful chart of consanguinity given
in Schedule I of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925. It would be seen there that a
brother's son is a nephew but it is quite
different from the son of the brother-inlaw.

8. A brother and a brother-in-law, in
relation to proximity of relationship, are
extremely wide apart. If the Schedule to
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is
considered, it would be seen that a brother
is at Item No. (3) of Head II of Class II of
the Schedule, but a brother-in-law is not
much of a relationship at all, from the
point of view of an inheritance of
property. We are aware that these
property legislations should not be placed
too much reliance upon when the Court is
construing word ''relation' given in a Rule,
which is meant to prohibit nepotism rather
than prohibit only some technically
proximate relation from being appointed.
But the words used in the explanation are
English words, which have specific
meaning both in the dictionary and in the
law, and help taken from these sources
cannot be wholly brushed aside.

9. It is important to note that from
the point of view of the Indian Succession
Act Chart, the nephew of the wife would
be the wife's brother's son, who would be
quite a different person than the brother's
son of the wife's husband, i.e. brother-inlaw's son.

10. However, if The Concise Oxford
Dictionary is to be consulted, the meaning
of nephew as given in the 1995 edition is
as follows:

Nephew; a son of one's brother or
sister, or of one's brother-in-law or sisterin-law.

11. The Indian Succession Act,
therefore, speaks with a different voice
from The Concise Oxford Dictionary;
dictionaries speak with the same voice
and Black's Dictionary defines nephew as
the son of one's brother or sister, or one's
brother-in-law or sister-in-law.

12. The reason for this difference is
not far to see; when one is looking at the
Indian Succession Act, one is judging the
descent of property, which has everything
to do with blood relationship.
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
13. The dictionaries, however, refer
to the common parlance and, therefore,
the reference to one's brother-in-law's son
as a nephew, would be quite right, say, in
a social conversation, although not quite
so right, if a lawyer were referring to that
relationship in his arguments made to a
judge in a Court of law.

14. On the basis of these materials
we have to take a decision whether the
explanation to Rules 165 prohibits a
brother-in-law's son by prohibiting a
nephew. We are unable to opine that in
that explanation nephew includes a
brother-in-law's son. We give a legally
restricted meaning to the word nephew
rather than give it a socially wide
meaning; where people's rights are
involved and curtailment of the eligibility
to
appointment
in
a
Panchayat
is
concerned, the prohibition has to be clear
and accurate before a person can be
barred from entering into a Panchayat
service.

15. We are also of the opinion that if
the Rule making authorities were minded
to stop a member's brother-in-law's son
from
being
inducted
in
the
same
Panchayat, it would have specifically said
so by prohibiting a brother-in-law's son,
as it has prohibited a nephew's son by
express mention.

16. In these circumstances, the
appeal is allowed. The writ petition is
dismissed and the quashing of the
appellant's appointment and selection is
set aside. The appellant shall function
hereafter in accordance with law.
Appeal Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12671 of 1990

Smt. Amrawati and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The
XI
Additional
District
Judge,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajesh Tandon
Sri Kshitij Shailendra
Sri S.K. Johri

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.N. Tripathi
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 50 Rule
1(8), Order 41 rule 27 readwith Small
Causes Courts Act, Section 17 and 25Additional
evidence-although
the
provision of Order 41 rule 27 are not
applicable-Document
sought
to
be
admitted are relevant and necessary to
arrive at a correct and proper decisionheld-revisional court correctly exercised
its jurisdiction by admitting additional
evidence-can not be interfered under
writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para 18

In the present case I have already
considered
and
recorded
that
the
documents sought to be admitted were
relevant and necessary for meeting out
justice between the parties and also for
the Court to arrive at a correct and
proper decision inter se between the
parties, therefore, the revisional court
has correctly exercised its jurisdiction in
admitting the additional evidence.
Case law discussed:
1979 ALJ 1263
1983 ARC-15