AYODHYA PRASAD VAJPAI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 13-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 suc-
cession 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.