SMT. GEETA versus STATE OF U. P. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 1126 · Decided: 14-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
(2010] 15 (ADOL.) S.C.R. 1126 
SMT. GEETA 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10607 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 14, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat 
Act, 1961 - U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 -
C ss. 7(3), 9(2) and 9A - The 1961 Act provided for offices of 
Pramukh, Up-Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh and Junior Up-
Pramukh) in eve!}' Kshettra Panchayat - Amendment made 
to the 1961 Act - Non-obstante clause in s. 7(3) of the 
Amendment Act - Interpretation of -
Whether after the 
D Amendment to the 1961 Act, the right and authority of the . 
senior Up-Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh 
survived or whether the District Magistrate could nominate an 
elected member to be the Pramukh when the post of 
Pramukh fell vacant and till a new Pramukh was elected or 
E resumed office - Held: The Amendment Act abolished the 
said post of Up-Pramukh from the Kshettra Panchayats and · 
provided that in cases where the post of Pramukh fell vacant, 
the District Magistrate was to make such arrangements as he 
thought fit - Though, as per s. 7(3), the Up-Pramukhs would 
F still continue to hold office as such till the end of their term, 
but the operation of the non-obstante clause in s. 7(3) shall be 
subject to the intent of the legislature, and must be interpreted 
in line with the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it 
was enacted - Term 'continue to hold office as such' in the 
G provision would mean that despite the abolition of the post of 
LUp-Pramukh in the amending Act, those who were elected as 
Up-Pramukh prior to such amendment will just continue as 
such i.e. as Up-Pramukh till his term expires - Expression 'as 
such' has been added by way of caution and to emphasize 
H 
1126 
GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS. 
1127 
that the continuance of Up-Pramukh is limited to just holding 
A 
the office of Up-Pramukh - Expressions 'as if the said Act were 
not enacted' in. s. 7(3) of the amending Act apply only where 
by way of general amendment of the 1961 Act, the words Up-
Pramukh have been omitted - Contrary argument of the 
respondent that Up-Pramukhs will continue to exercise all the 
B 
powers and functions under ss. 82 and 83 of the pre-existing 
provisions of the Act despite the express deletion of those 
provisions by the Amendment Act, cannot be accepted - If 
· that argument is accepted, pre-existing provisions of ss. 82 and 
83, will be revived and ss.9(2) and 9A, brought in by way of C 
amendment and thereby empowering the District Magistrate 
to make arrangements when the office of the Pramukh is 
vacant or when the Pramukh.is unable to discharge functions 
will be unworkable - Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious 
interpretation. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Non-obstante clause - Purport 
and meaning of - Discussed. 
The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila 
Panchayat Act, 1961 provided for the offices of Pramukh, 
Up-Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh and Junior Up-
Pramukh) in every Kshettra Panchayat and Adhyaksha 
and Up-Adhyaksha in every Zila Panchayat. The Act was 
amended vide the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) 
Act, 2007. Consequently common questions of law arose 
relating to interpretation of section 7(3) vis-a-vis sections 
-
9(2) and 9A of the said Amendment Act. 
Dispute arose as to whether after the Amendment to 
E 
F 
the 1961 Act, the right and authority of the senior Up-
Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh survived 
G 
or whether the District Magistrate could nominate an 
elected member to be the Pramukh when the post of 
Pramukh fell vacant and till a new Pramukh was elected 
or resumed office. 
H 
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants put forward their case under sections 
9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act. They claimed that as 
per the abovementionei:t provisions, it was for the District 
Magistrate to appoint a. P"ramukh when the ,post of th.e 
Pramukh fell vacant, and the Up-Pramukh could. not 
8 automatically discharge the fUnctions as Pramukh When 
the· post of ·Pramukh fell vacant,.after the enforcement of 
the Amendment Act. 
' 
Per contra, the respondent contended that the Up-
Pramukh would automatically b.~come the Pramukh 
C when the post of Pramukh· falls· vacant, as was the 
position before the Amendment Act was enforced; and 
also that the same is justified under the non-obstante 
claus~ in section 7(3) as all]ended. The respondents 
conte

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