STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER versus ZINABHAI RANCHHODJI DARJI & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 07-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 310.4-
Jts Scope-Bombay Provincial 
Municipal 
Corporation;• 
Act 
1949-
S. 3(3) and S. 493-Its Scope and Gujar.i Municipalities Act 1963-
S. 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. There-
upon, 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 con-
sists 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 autho-
rity 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 Munici-
pal 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 ex-
cluded from the limits of 'C' Taluka Panchayat & the Surat District Pan-
chayat from January 1971 with a direction that the members of the dis-
solved 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 Con1-
missioner. 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 suffi-
cienlly conversant with the provisions of the various local enactm

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