# AYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI v. STATE OF U.P. &

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 433
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-03-13
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullaii, R. S. Bachawat, C. A. Vaidial!Ngam, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ayodhya-prasad-vajpai-v-state-of-u-p-4422
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

, U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zita Pa,.islrads Adhiniyam, 1961 (33
of
1963), ss. 3, 4,
8 a11d 8A-Abolitio11 of Khands and tenninc.1io11 of
Saniities-lf Executive Governnient has power-Power to ter1nitU1tc-.lf
etcessive delecation-lf violative of Art .. 14 o/ tl1c Constitution.
The appellant was elected Pramukh of a Kshcttra Samiti and his term
of office which was co-terminus with that Of the Sarniti, was for five years.
fhe Government of Uttar Pradesh issued two notification's t\ndcr ss. 3
and 8 of the Ulla\- Pradesh Kshcttra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhini·
yam, 1961, by \Vhich the rural areas in the district Ylerc redivided into
i1ew Khands, the Khand relating to the appellant's Samiti was abolished
and the term of the Samiti was brought to a close. As a consequence,
the appellant lost the office of Pramukh of the Samiti. His writ petition in
the High Court challenging the notifications was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court it wps contended that: (I) The two notifica·
tions arc repugnant to th~ scheme of the Act; (2) Sections 3 and 8 are
i:ontrary to the other provisions of the Act under \vhich a San1iti once
constituted had a corporate existence v+'ith perpetual succession owning
prope'rty and a fund, and \\'hose existence for 5 years v;as contemplated
under the Act with the possibility of further continuance; (3) Sections 3
.ind 8 \Vere invalid because they involved excessive delegation of Jcgisl~·
tive functions to the State Government, and (4) Th~ sections violate :\rt.
14 of the Constitution because they furnish an indirect tncthod of re·
moving the Pramukh, Up·pramukh and members of a K!:ihcttra Samlti
without resorting to the app'ropriate pro\'isions in the Act.
HELD: (1) The notifications fiO\V fron1 an express grant of po'~'er
to the Executive by the Legislature. [438 BJ
The Act \\'as -jntcndcd to make dcn1ocracy broa<l-h:t~ct.l and
to ;.ve
training, in the art of administration and running dcn1ocracy, to the rur11.I
-t:)()J>ulation.
Its scheme indicates that the a'rea of the district is required
io be divided into many Khands with a Kshettra Samiti in each Khand.
'fhe po\\--cr to create Khands nn1st he read with the: po\\·er to
abolish
Kbands and create new Khands in their place.
Sections 3, 4, 8 and SA
confer po\\·er upon the Sh1te Governn1cnt to alter the area of th~ Khand,
abolish old Khands, constitute nc\v Khands nnd re-establish old one<;; and
this po.,vcr is given by the Legislature advisedly, so that the \Vorking of
dcmoc'racy in the rural areas in Kshcttra Samitics and Zila Parish~ds reav
be smooth and without difficulty, [435 D-E; 437 G-H; 538 GJ
-
(2) The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot be said to negative the other
provisions of the Act, vYhich merely indicate \\'hat a Kshettra San1iti
is
required to do as Jong as it cxisls. Perpetual succession only means succession of one S.arniti to another, hut docs not entail perpetual existence
of any Samiti or any Khand not\\·ithstanding the inadvisability of conti·
nuing it for administrative or other valid reason<;.
Simila'rly,
tho
f~ct
lhat thl.! San1ities arc rcquir·~d to function \\"ith right to hold property, to
434
SUPIU!MB COURT lll'OltTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R •
posselis fund and to carry on administration, does not show that the
power given. by the Act to reconstitute Khands is in any way impail:ed
or frustrated. The lint power exists whon the Samities are established
and continue; and the ·se<:Olld come& into play when the need for the re·
coastitution of a .K:band emerges. [438 B-FJ
(3) The Act has not erred by conceding unfettered or uncanalized
power to the State GOVWIDlent. [439 D·E]
1be underlying policy and the objective of the legislation is set out
in the preamble and o!her provisions of the Act and the Act gives ample
indication of what the puipose of making a Khand is and the duties wb1cb
the Samlti must p«form. The del3ils of how big a Khand should be,
what territory it should involve and. how many Samities should be con·
stituted in each diStr

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
AYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI
v.
STATE OF U.P. &
March 13, 1968
[M. HIDAYATULLAII, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM,
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.)
, U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zita Pa,.islrads Adhiniyam, 1961 (33
of
1963), ss. 3, 4,
8 a11d 8A-Abolitio11 of Khands and tenninc.1io11 of
Saniities-lf Executive Governnient has power-Power to ter1nitU1tc-.lf
etcessive delecation-lf violative of Art .. 14 o/ tl1c Constitution.
The appellant was elected Pramukh of a Kshcttra Samiti and his term
of office which was co-terminus with that Of the Sarniti, was for five years.
fhe Government of Uttar Pradesh issued two notification's t\ndcr ss. 3
and 8 of the Ulla\- Pradesh Kshcttra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhini·
yam, 1961, by \Vhich the rural areas in the district Ylerc redivided into
i1ew Khands, the Khand relating to the appellant's Samiti was abolished
and the term of the Samiti was brought to a close. As a consequence,
the appellant lost the office of Pramukh of the Samiti. His writ petition in
the High Court challenging the notifications was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court it wps contended that: (I) The two notifica·
tions arc repugnant to th~ scheme of the Act; (2) Sections 3 and 8 are
i:ontrary to the other provisions of the Act under \vhich a San1iti once
constituted had a corporate existence v+'ith perpetual succession owning
prope'rty and a fund, and \\'hose existence for 5 years v;as contemplated
under the Act with the possibility of further continuance; (3) Sections 3
.ind 8 \Vere invalid because they involved excessive delegation of Jcgisl~·
tive functions to the State Government, and (4) Th~ sections violate :\rt.
14 of the Constitution because they furnish an indirect tncthod of re·
moving the Pramukh, Up·pramukh and members of a K!:ihcttra Samlti
without resorting to the app'ropriate pro\'isions in the Act.
HELD: (1) The notifications fiO\V fron1 an express grant of po'~'er
to the Executive by the Legislature. [438 BJ
The Act \\'as -jntcndcd to make dcn1ocracy broa<l-h:t~ct.l and
to ;.ve
training, in the art of administration and running dcn1ocracy, to the rur11.I
-t:)()J>ulation.
Its scheme indicates that the a'rea of the district is required
io be divided into many Khands with a Kshettra Samiti in each Khand.
'fhe po\\--cr to create Khands nn1st he read with the: po\\·er to
abolish
Kbands and create new Khands in their place.
Sections 3, 4, 8 and SA
confer po\\·er upon the Sh1te Governn1cnt to alter the area of th~ Khand,
abolish old Khands, constitute nc\v Khands nnd re-establish old one<;; and
this po.,vcr is given by the Legislature advisedly, so that the \Vorking of
dcmoc'racy in the rural areas in Kshcttra Samitics and Zila Parish~ds reav
be smooth and without difficulty, [435 D-E; 437 G-H; 538 GJ
-
(2) The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot be said to negative the other
provisions of the Act, vYhich merely indicate \\'hat a Kshettra San1iti
is
required to do as Jong as it cxisls. Perpetual succession only means succession of one S.arniti to another, hut docs not entail perpetual existence
of any Samiti or any Khand not\\·ithstanding the inadvisability of conti·
nuing it for administrative or other valid reason<;.
Simila'rly,
tho
f~ct
lhat thl.! San1ities arc rcquir·~d to function \\"ith right to hold property, to
434
SUPIU!MB COURT lll'OltTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R •
posselis fund and to carry on administration, does not show that the
power given. by the Act to reconstitute Khands is in any way impail:ed
or frustrated. The lint power exists whon the Samities are established
and continue; and the ·se<:Olld come& into play when the need for the re·
coastitution of a .K:band emerges. [438 B-FJ
(3) The Act has not erred by conceding unfettered or uncanalized
power to the State GOVWIDlent. [439 D·E]
1be underlying policy and the objective of the legislation is set out
in the preamble and o!her provisions of the Act and the Act gives ample
indication of what the puipose of making a Khand is and the duties wb1cb
the Samlti must p«form. The del3ils of how big a Khand should be,
what territory it should involve and. how many Samities should be con·
stituted in each diStrict, etc. cannot be the subject of detailed legislation
and th.ey are eminently matters which can be left to the determination
of the Executive which is to act in conformity with the wishes of the
local ~e, the political exigency of the situation and the i"equirements
of administrative control.
On this subject the legislative will has been
expressed in sufficient detail giving guidance to the State Government in
mating its notifications to implement it. [438 G-H; 439 C-EJ
State .of Bhopal cit Ors. v. Champa/al cit Ors., [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35,
followed.
( 4) Sections 3 and 8 do not .violate Art. 14. The provision in ihe
Act on the •ubject of nmoval of members of a Samiti and that dealing
with the subject of re«pnisation of Khands deal with dilferent powers
A
B
c
D
and cannot be c~~
at all. One is concem..i dlrectlY with the re·
moval of Pramukb, Up-Pramukh and other members, while the other is
concerned diroctly with tlie abolition and reconstitution of Kbands. It
may be that by abolishina: al Kband and its Kshettra Samiti. the members,
including the Pramutb, must also go; but, that is the comequence of the
E
exercise of a dilferent power. If, however the actiOn in abolishing the
Khand is for the direct purpoae of the removal of a Pramukh, UpPramukh or member of a Samiti, the action of the Executive Government
can be struck down as ma/4 fide. In the present case, there is no evidence of any ma/4 {ides. [439 0-H; 440 A-CJ
Ram Dial and Ors. v. State of Pun;ab, [19651 2 S.C.R. 858. distin·
guished.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JUJtlSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1805 of
1967.
ApJJ.elll by special leave from the judgment and order dated
the 20th October 1967 o~ the Allahabad High Court in Special
Appeal No. 864 ot 1967.
G
R; K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, Anil Kumar, Shiv Punjan Si11g/1
N. M. Ghatate, for the appell\lnt.
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment of
a division Bench, October 20, 1967, in a Special Appeal (No.
864 of 1967) of the High Court of Allahabad affirming the disH
A. P. VAJPAI V. u:P. STATE (Hidtiyatullah, C.J.)
435
A missal of 61 writ petitions by a learned single Judge of the High
Court. This appeal arises from one such petition. The appellant was elected Pramukh of Sarwan Khera Kshettra Samiti and
his term of office which was co-terminus with the term of the
Samifi, extended to five years. He challenges in this appeal, (as
he did in the High Court), two Government notifications issued
B by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (Act 33
of 1963). By these notifications the Government of · Uttar
Pradesh has redivided the rural area in the district to which the
matter relates into neVI' Khands specifying the limits and constituents of their areas and as a consequence has abolished a few
khands and created new Khands in their place. The Khand
C
relating to the appellant's Samiti has been abolished by the first
notification and by the second notification the term of the Samiti
has also been brought to a close. Both the notifications are of
July I, 1966.
'The appellant challenges these notifications as
also ss. 3 and 8 of the Act on various grounds. To understand
his contentions we may begin by setting -out how the Act is
D
constructed.
·
The Act was passed in 1961 for the establishment of Kshettra
Samities and Zila Parishads in Uttar Pradesh. h was intended
to make democracy broad-based and to give training in the art
of administration and running democracy to the rural population.
E
It is a long Act of 27.4 sections and 8 schedules. It is not
possible tof"ve more than a brief idea of the constitution of the
Samitis an their functions and organisation. The preamble of
the Act states as follows :
"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the establishment of Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads in the
F
districts of Uttar Pradesh to undertake certain governmental functions at Kshettra and district levels respectively in furtherance of the principle of democratic
decentralisation of governmental fupctions
and for
ensuring proper municipal government in rural areas,
and to correlate the powers and functions of Gaon
G
Sabhas under the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act,
1947, with Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads;"
The Act goes on to define a Kshettra Samiti as a Kshettra
Samiti established under s. 5 of the Act and a Khand as an area
of the district specified as such by the State Government under
s. 3 Chapter II of the Act deals inter alia with the establishH
ment of Kshettra Samitis and s. 3 provides as follows :-
"The State Government shall by notification in the
Gazette divide the rural area of each district into khands
436
SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R
specifying each Khand by a name and the limits or
constituents of its area and may likewise change the
names or make modifications in the areas and limits of
the Khands by including therein or excluding therefrom areas or create new Khands."
This section allows the State Government to divide the rural
area of each district into Khands. It also enables the Government to change the name of a Kshettra Samiti and to make· modifications in the areas and limits of the Khands and to create new
Khands. Section 4 · specifies the effect of change in Khands
A
B
and the temporary and permanent consequences
thereof
are
provided for.
Section 5 then deals with the establishment and
C
incorporation of Kshettra Samitis for each Khand bearing the
name of the Khand for which it .is established. It says inter alia
that every Kshettra Samiti is a body corporate having peqietual
succession ap.d common seal and subject to any restrictions or
qualificatio~ imposed by any other enacfuumi.s, possesses ,the
power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to enter into
contracts and may by its corporate name sue and be sued.
D
Section 6 details the composition of Kshettra Samitis providing
for elections and cooptions. Section 7 lays down the procedure
for the election of the Pramukhs. and the Up-Pramukhs of the
Kshettra Samitis and its members and s. 9 in the same way
deals with the term of the Pramukhs and the Up-Pramukhs.
Section 10 then enables the Government to ararnge for the constitution of the first Kshettra Samiti for every Khand and for the
rec:onstitution thereof on the expiry of the first and each subsequent term or when otherwise required under the Act having
regard io the provisions of s. 6.
Sections 11-16 deal with the
resigilatio11 of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs and members, filling of
casual vacancies, disqualifications for being chosen or co-opted
as members,, disputes as to membership or disqualification and
motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and removal of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. Jn this way complete local
self-government is established.
·
In 19.65 by a Sanshodan Adhiniyam, 1965 certain changes
were introduced in the parent Act. In s. 8 a second proviso was
inserted which read:
''Provided further ·that where the State
Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so
to do with a view. to re-organisation of Khands, it may
by notification in the Gazette determine the term of all
or any Kshettra Samitis.''
The Amending Ac.t also added section SA of which the second
sub-section is material for our purpose and may be read here.
E
F
G
H
A. P. VAJPAI v. U.P. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
437
A
"Where on account of changes in the areas of the
.Kharids under section 4, a Khand ceases to exist, or
where under the second proviso to sub-section ( 1 ) of
Section 8 the term of the .Kshettra Sarniti of any Khand
is determined, the Pramukh and the memlier of the
.Kshettra Samiti of such Khand who are members of
B
the Zila Parishad under clauses (i) and (ii) respectively
of sub-section (1 ) of Section 18 shall, notwithsthanding
anything contained in Sections 18 and 20, continue to
be members of the Parishad for the residue of the term
of the Parishad."
c
D
E
When the .Kshettra Samitis were formed Khands were estab1.isb.ed and the appellant was the Pramukh of .Kshettra Samiti
relating io a .Khand called Sarwan Khera.
By the impugned
notifications, the Khand and its Kshettra Sarniti have
been
abolished and the appellant loses the office of Pramukh of the
Kshettra Samiti concemeil. He challenged in the High Court
the two notifications as ultra vires and repugnant to the scheme
and the purpose of the Act. He challenged also ss. 3 and 8 as
suffering from excessive delegation of legislative functions and
involving a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
These
arguments were repelled concurrently in the High Court and his
further allegation that the action was ma/a. fide was
also discountenanced. He urged the same arguments.·before us.
Mr. R. K. Garg on behalf of the appellant took us through
the provisions of the Act pointing out that the Sarniti once constituted had a ·corporate existence with perpetual succession and
it was not possible for the State Government to destroy a corpor3.tion so set up and which. owned property and a fund and whose
exiatence for five years was contemplated under the Act . with
F
possibility of further continuance. It is noi necessary to refer to
these sections because they are to be found .in all legislation
deiiling with the establishment of corporate local self-Govern·
ment bodies. The question is not whether Kshettra Samitis
enjoy peipetua1 succe8sion. The question is whether the Kshettra
Samitis once established ·enjoy perpetual existence. The schenie
G
of the Act clearly indicates thai the area of the district is required
to 9c divided into many .Khands with a Kshettra Sainiti in each
Khand. Sections 3, 4, 8 and SA confer power upon the State
Government to alter the . area of the Khand, constitute new
Kh:inds and n;-establish old ones. This power is . given by the
legislature advisedly so that the working of democracy in · the
rural areas in the Kshettra Sarnitis and Zila Parishads may be
smooth and without difficulty. The reorganisation of the .Khands
B
may ~e
necessary because of circumlltances too numerous
to mention here. Power has, therefore, been reserved to Govern-
438
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R.
ment to make the alterations as stated above.
It will be seen
that the latter part of s. 3 gives specific power to .create new
Khands in addition to the change of areas of the existing Khands
wllich means that new Khands may be brought into existeoce
and old Khands abolished. In fact, ss. 4 and SA and the newly
added provisO to section 8 bear upon the abolition of existing
Khands.
In other words, what the State Government did was
by an express grant from the legislature. The other provisions
o[ the Act to which our attention was drawn merely indicate what
Kshettra Samiti is required to do as long as the Kshettra Samiti
exists.
Similarly the term of the Kshettra Samitis is to apply
to a Kshettra Samiti which is not abolished but continues. The
perpetual succession in this context means successions of one
Kshettra Samiti to another but in fact it does not entail perpetual
existence of any Samiti or any Khand notwithstanding the inadvisability of continuing it for administrative or other valid
reason.
The power exercised by the Government in issuing the
two notifications flow clearly from the provisions of the law
under which Government was acting.
It is for this reason that the attack of Mr. Garg was next
directed against ss. 3 arid 8 of the Act. He compared .the power
to make new Khands and to reorganise the old ones with the
other scheme of the Act under which the Kshettra Samitis are
required to function with right to hold property, to possess fund
and to carry on administration. All this does not show that the
power given by the act to reconstitute Khands is in any
way
impaired or frustrated. The two pgwers are quite distinct. The
first power exists when the Samitis are established and Continue.
The second power comes into play when the need for reconstitution of the Khand emerges. The provisions of ss. 3 and 8 cannot thus 'be said to negative the other J>rDVisions to which our
atiention was drawn.
·
It was next contended by Mr. Garg that ss. 3 and 8 were invalid because they involved excessive delegation of legislative
functions to the State Government and being_ not supported by
adequate safeguards or guides, 1nust be struck down. This argument is not valid. The Act speaks for itself and is self-contained. Its policy is .stated in clear terms and the power to create
Khands must be read with the power to abolish Khands and
create new Khands in their place. The details of how big a
Khand should be, .w~at territory it should involve and so on and so
forth cannot be the subject of detailed legislation.
The Act
gives ample indication of what the pui:pose of making a Khand
is and the duties which the Kshettra Samitis must perform.
On
t11is subject the legislative will has been sufficiently expressed and
must, therefore, guide the State Government in making its notifiA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. P. VAJPAI v. U.P. STATE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
439
A
cations. This case is analogous to the one reported in State o.f
Bhopal and others v. Champa/al and other~('). In that case 11
was observed that the pteamble and long utle of ~ll Act made
it clear that the enactment was ''.for the reclamation and the
development of the land by the eradication of Kans weed in
certain areas in the State." The purpose being specified as the
a eradication of kans in area infested with it, the Act was said to
be valid although the selection of the land was left to the ~
cutive. The legislative policy behind the provisions of Jaw were
held to be writ large on it, and what remained or was left to the
Executive was to carry out the mandate and give effect to the
Jaw to achieve the purpose of the Act.
c
D
E
In present case also the underlying policy and the ob~tive
of the legislation is cleilrly set out and the details of the duues ot
the Kshettra Samitis are indicated. It has, however, been left to
the State Government to determine what the Khands should be
and how many Kshettra Samitis sho_uld be constituted in each
district. This is not a subj~t for detailed legislation because it
is eminently a .matter which can be left to the determination of
the Executive which is ·to act in conformity with the wishes of
the · 1oca1 people, the political exigency of the situation and the
requirements of administrative control. In our opinion, the Act
has not erred by conceding unfetrered or uncanalised power to
the State Government as is contended. On the other hand, it
has itself spoken on the relevant subject in full detail so as to
outline its own will which alone the Executive is supposed to
implement.
It was next contended that ss. 3 and 8 violate Art. 14 because
they furnish an indirect method of removal of the Pramukh, the
Up-Pramukh and the Members of a Kshettra Samiti without havF
1ng to take recourse to the provisions for their removal as laid
down. i.n the A7t. . Reliance in this connection is placed upon
~ deem on of this Court in Ram Dial and others v. StatP of Punjab (1). That case is·easily distinguishable.
~ere the Punjab Municipalities
Act
contained
two
provis10ns for the i:e!Doval of a mem})er in the public
G
mterest. By one prov1s100 he was entitled to a hearing and by
the other not. This Court held .that as it was open to choose
one: method . rather than the other and that there was room for
arbitrary action. Here the provision on the subject of removal
of ~embers of th~ K;9hettra Samitis are not congruous with the
~llbJec! of fC?rgan1Sat1on of Khands. The two provisions operate
H
m entirely different fields.
One is concerned directly with the
remov~ o! the Pramukh, Up-Pramukh and the members.
The
other is directly concerned with the abolition of the Khands and
(I) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 35.
(2) [19551 2 S.C.R. 858.
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 S.C.ll.
rec:Onsti~ution of different Khands.
These are
two
different
If.
powers and cannot be compared at all. It may be that by
abolishing a Khand and its Kshettra Samiti !he members also
must go, but that is a consequence of the exercise of quite a
different power. Of course, if the action in abolishing the Khand
could be shown to be directly connected with the removal of the
Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or a member of ·the Kshettra Samiti the
B
action of the Executive Government can be struck down as mala
fide.
It was for this purpose that 1lhe appellant pleaded in the
High Court ma/a {ides on the part of the Government. The two
judgments now under appeal negative the
existence of any
ma1a fide intention. No material was placed before us io establish ma/a {ides nor could the findings be. attacked since tl)ey were
concurrently reached. In this view of the matter we must hold
that the State Government in exercising its powers acted honestly and within the four corners of its jurisdiction.
[n the result the appeal must be !J.eld to be without substance.
It will be dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.