# STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER v. ZINABHAI RANCHHODJI DARJI & ORS

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 686
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-12-01
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-another-v-zinabhai-ranchhodji-darji-ors-5532
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

GujararPanrhayats Act 1961-S. 310 A-Sub-section 1 o/ S. 310.4Jts Scope-Bombay Provincial
Municipal
Corporation;•
Act
1949S. 3(3) and S. 493-Its Scope and Gujar.i Municipalities Act 1963S. 279(2)-/ts scope and their in(!erpretation.
In a Taluka Panchayat election in !968, Resp!. No. I 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. !S(i) (A)(i) of the Gu]arat 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 constituteo 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' had 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 Panchayat 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. I having ceased to
hold office as President of the Taluka Panchayat when he was elected as
Presidept of the District Panchayat, could not act as an ex-officio member
of th·~ 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. 3 IOA
(2) (b) of the Panchayat 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 Con1missioner. The Hi~b Court allowed the petition on the ground that by
reason of the exception contained in S. 310A(l0) of the Panchayats Act
the De,·elopment Commissioner had po power to dissolve the panchayat
in question under Sub-s. (i) of that section. On appeal the question aroso
as to whether the provisions of S. 310A(IO) would apply to the Municipal
borough of Surat which had been converted into a city with effect from
October, I, 1966.
HELD :
(i) The Appellant had no right to dissolve the 'C' Taluka
Panchayat under sub-S. (1) because S. 3 IOA(!O) 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
GUJARAT l'. ZINABHAI (Grover, J.)
687
limits of a municipal borough or conversion of a municipal borough into
a Gram or Na&.ar or the establishment of or the alteratiOIJ 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 ot
para I 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 (I) of Section 310(A)
will
have no application. [692 HJ
(iii) In the matter of interpretation of enactment which are in force
in a particular S

## Text

686
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
v.
ZINABHAI RANCHHODJI DARJI & ORS.
December 1, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. R.a.r, JJ.]
GujararPanrhayats Act 1961-S. 310 A-Sub-section 1 o/ S. 310.4Jts Scope-Bombay Provincial
Municipal
Corporation;•
Act
1949S. 3(3) and S. 493-Its Scope and Gujar.i Municipalities Act 1963S. 279(2)-/ts scope and their in(!erpretation.
In a Taluka Panchayat election in !968, Resp!. No. I 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. !S(i) (A)(i) of the Gu]arat 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 constituteo 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' had 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 Panchayat 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. I having ceased to
hold office as President of the Taluka Panchayat when he was elected as
Presidept of the District Panchayat, could not act as an ex-officio member
of th·~ 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. 3 IOA
(2) (b) of the Panchayat 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 Con1missioner. The Hi~b Court allowed the petition on the ground that by
reason of the exception contained in S. 310A(l0) of the Panchayats Act
the De,·elopment Commissioner had po power to dissolve the panchayat
in question under Sub-s. (i) of that section. On appeal the question aroso
as to whether the provisions of S. 310A(IO) would apply to the Municipal
borough of Surat which had been converted into a city with effect from
October, I, 1966.
HELD :
(i) The Appellant had no right to dissolve the 'C' Taluka
Panchayat under sub-S. (1) because S. 3 IOA(!O) 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
GUJARAT l'. ZINABHAI (Grover, J.)
687
limits of a municipal borough or conversion of a municipal borough into
a Gram or Na&.ar or the establishment of or the alteratiOIJ 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 ot
para I 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 (I) of Section 310(A)
will
have no application. [692 HJ
(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 sufficienlly conversant with the provisions of the various local enactments.
[694 G]
C1v1L 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.
D
M. C. Setalvad and B. D. Sharma, for the Appellant.
E
F
G
H
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 .iudgment of
the Gujarat High Court in which the legislation which came up for
interpretation has been characterised 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. Th.ereupon he became
ex-officio member of the Surat District Panchayat by virtue of s.
15(1J(A)(i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961, hereinafter call·
ed 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 distr·ict consists of
several Talukas; one of such Talukas is called Chorashi Taluka for
which a Taluka Panchayat was constituted under the 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 h~d 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 noification dated
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972J 2 s.c.R.
January 21, 1970 under s. 9(2) of the Panchayats Act declaring
that the local area Df Rander shall cease to be a Nagar and that
of Adajan shall cease to be a Gram with effect from February l,
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. 31 O(A) of tihe Panchayats
Act and delegated to him dissolving the Chorashi T aluka
Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat with effect from
January 11, 1971 with a direction tlhat 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 hpld 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.
31 OA(2)(b) of the Panchayats Act.
He. therefore, ceased to be
a member of the Surat District Panchayat as reconstituted. This
Jed to the cessation of his holding the office of the President of
that Panchayat. He filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constituion challenging the validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made by the Development Commissioner.
Before theJiigh Court two main grounds were taken on behalf
of respondent No. 1. The first was that the Development Commissioner as a delegate of the State Government had no power to
dissolve the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District
Panchayat under s. 31 OA(l) 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. 31OA(l0) 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 ~nactments the provisions of which will have
to be considered in order to decide the controversv between the
parties. The first is the Panchayats Act, the second is the Corporat:ions Act and the third is the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
hereinafter referred to as the 'Municioalities Act'. We mav first
refer to the material provisions of the Panchayats Act. This Act.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
GUJARAT v. ZINABHAI (Grover, J.)
689
according to the preamble, was emacted to consolidate and amend
the law relating to village panchayat and district 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 Sta~ 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 da&s
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. f the provi•
sions of the Panchayats Act were brought into force.
Section
D31 OA did not exist in the Panchayats Act as enacted. It wlls
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. 31 OA 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 constiE
F
G
H
tution 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 ~anchayat
or the Taluka Panchayat altered t!he 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. Accor.ding to sub-s. (10)
nothing in the foregoing provisions of the section shall 11pply or
shall be deemed ever to have applied to the alteration of tlill 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 municipa I
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' means a
municipal borough constituted or deemed to be constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963".
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972J 2 S.C.R.
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, mtpicipal
borough, muncipal district. notified area or cantonment.
The Corporatio,ns 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 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 I of Part I 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 constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act 190 l
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 tile case may be, and such enactment, rule, order
or notification shall apply to the said City or Corpora.
tion".
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 I, 1966
by mean> of a notification issued under s. 3(2) of the Corporations
Ac~.
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
H
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GUJARAT v. ZINABHAI (Grover, J.)
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 municipal borough under this Act;
(ii) the municipalities constituted under the said Acts
iminediately 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");
( ... )
"
Ill •.......•..........•.....•.•.•
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 Municipalities Act
there would have bej!n no difficulty in applying s. 3 lOA (10) and
its provisions would have excluded .the applicability of sub-s. (1)
of s. 31 OA 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. 31 OA ( 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 mean a revenue dist!rict 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 tihat 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
reipect 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
tho 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
i!iiued under s. I (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 issueQ by the State
Government under section I 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 I
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 ard 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 wa~ in To~ce 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 be found in Chap~r 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 !lo mean that it was
applied to the revenue district of Surat which would include the
municipal borough of Surat. Now Para I of Appendix IV in the
Corporation Act Jays down that 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. 3 lOA of the Panchayal~
Act was in force in the revenue district of Surat it aoolied to the
municipal borough of Surat prior to that borough becoming a City
with effect from October l, 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. 3 lOA(l 0) of the Panchayats Act
would have the meaning of the word "City".
c
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
GUJARAT v. ZINABHAI (Grover, J.)
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. 3 lOA(l 0) of the Panchayats Act was applicable to a revenue district which included the
borough of Surat before it became a city. lt 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 distric11s 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 tho provisions
of the Act can be brought into force in such distric~ 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. 31 OA 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. 31 OA 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 impermissible 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 I 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 I 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. 31 OA and in particular
sub-s. (10) of that section should have omitted the word "city"
from the principal part of that sub-section as also the Explanation.
But it is equally possible that tihe applicability of Appendix IV
(Para I) of the Corporations Act was kept in view and it was considered unnecessary to expressly mention the word "city" in s.
3 lOA(lO) 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 tb conceive of a situation
where a city might be converted into a Gram or a Nagar but that
would only mean that no occasion would arise to invoke the words
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972]2 S.C.R.
"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 con·
verted 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 I of Appendix IV :
"The principle underlying Paragraph I seems to be
that where an enactment was in force in a local area and
applied in relation to it, it must continue t;o 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 continued to be a municipal
borough which it was when sub-section (10) of section
3 lOA 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 Rander and Adajan in the limil!S
of the Municipal Borough of Surat, sub-section (10) of
section 3 lOA would have applied, then is there any reason from the point of view of Section 31 OA 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 Municip1l 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 th;Tc is any such infirmity in the
judgment of the Hig:1 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 cosrs.
s.c.
.1p;:eal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H