CHHATRASING RUPSINH BHALAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions raise identical questions of law and it would therefore be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. The facts giving rise to these two petitions are also similar but it is necessary to set out the facts of each petition separately in order to avoid confusion as to facts in the two petitions. So far as petition No. 686 of 1965 is concerned the fasts may be briefly stated as follows:- The Gram Panchayat of village Tundav situate in Savli Taluka of Baroda District was constituted in 1961 and the petitioner who was elected as a member of the Tundav Gram Panchayat was elected its Sarpanch some time in 1961. The petitioner by virtue of his office as Sarpanch of Tundav Gram Panchayat became an ex officio member of the Savli Taluka Panchayat under sec. 14 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and when the Baroda District Panchayat was constituted in the end of January 1964 he was elected as a member of the Baroda District Panchayat by the Savli Taluka Panchayat from amongst its members under sec. 15 of the Act. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Education Committee of the Baroda District Panchayat. The terms of the Baroda District Panchayat was due to expire in February 1968 but before that on 3rd April 1965 the term of Tundav Gram Panchayat came to an end and it was reconstituted by holding fresh elections. The petitioner was again elected as a member of the Tundav Gram Panchayat and the choice of the members again fell upon him and he was elected Sarpanch of the reconstituted Tundav Gram Panchayat. On these facts the question arose whether the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Baroda District Panchayat. The District Development Officer took the view that the petitioner had ceased to be a member of the Baroda District Panchayat and he accordingly prevented the petitioner from attending the meetings of the Baroda District Panchayat. The petitioner thereupon filed Petition No. 686 of 1965 in this Court claiming an appropriate writ directing the District Development Officer and the Baroda District Panchayat to treat the petitioner as continuing to be a member of the Baroda District Panchayat and restraining them from interfering with the right of the petitioner to act as a member of the Baroda District Panchayat. So far as Petition No. 783 of 1965 is concerned the petitioner was a member of and Sarpanch of Jambughoda Gram Panchayat and by virtue of his office as Sarpanch of Jambughoda Gram Panchayat he became an ex officio member of Jambughoda Taluka Panchayat on 1st April 1963. Thereafter he was elected as a member of Panchmahal District Panchayat by the Jambughoda Taluka Panchayat from amongst its members in March 1964. The term of Jambughoda Gram Panchayat came to an end on 30th June 1965 and at the fresh election held for electing members of the reconstituted Jambughoda Gram Panchayat the petitioner was again elected as a member and at the first meeting of the reconstituted Jambughoda Gram Panchayat held on 8th July 1966 he was again elected Sarpanch of Jambughoda Gram Panchayat. The District Development Officer in this case also contended that by reason of the expiration of the term of Jambughoda Gram Panchayat the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Panchmahal District Panchayat and was therefore not entitled to attend the meetings of the Panchmahal District Panchayat. The petitioner therefore filed Petition No. 783 of 1965 claiming the same reliefs as claimed in Petition No. 686 of 1965.

(2.) Before we set out the questions, which arise for consideration in these two petitions it will be convenient to refer to a few relevant sections of the Act, which have a bearing on the determination of the controversy between the parties. The Act provides for different classes of Panchayats with a view to democratic decentralisation of powers relating to Local Government Sec. 3 says that there shall be a Gram Panchayat for each Gram a Taluka Panchayat for each Taluka and a District Panchayat for each District. Sec. 12 provides for the constitution of the Gram Panchayat. Sub-sec. (1) says that the Gram Panchayat shall consist wholly of members elected from amongst the qualified voters of the Gram and sub-sec. (2) provides that every Gram Panchayat shall have a Sarpanch and an Up-Sarpanch elected by its members from amongst themselves Sec. 14 provides for the constitution of the Taluka Panchayat and according to that section the Taluka Panchayat shall consist of four classes of members. Class A of ex officio members shall include inter alia the Sarpanchas of all the Gram Panchayats within the Taluka; Class B of elected members shall consist of members elected by the Chairmen of all the co-operative societies situate within the Taluka or the area of operation of which includes the whole or a part of the area of the Taluka from amongst themselves; Class C of co-opted members shall consist of women interested in welfare activities pertaining to women and children and representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Class D of associate members shall consist of members of the Legislative Assembly elected from any constituency in the Taluka the Mamlatdar of the Taluka the Presidents of all the municipalities situate within the Taluka and the elected members of the District Panchayat ordinarily residing in the Taluka. The constitution of the District Panchayat is dealt with in sec. 15 and according to that section the District Panchayat shall also consist of four classes of members. The Presidents of all the Taluka Panchayats in the district are to be the ex officio members of the District Panchayat. Then there are elected members of the District Panchayat and they are divided into two categories. The first category consists of :-

(3.) . Now it can hardly be disputed that when the term of the Gram Panchayat carne to an end the petitioner ceased to be a member and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and since his office of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat came to an end he also ceased to be an ex officio member of the Taluka Panchayat. Vide the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1006 of 1965 and 1295 of 1967 given on 31st January 1968. But the question is whether on his ceasing to be an ex officio member of the Taluka Panchayat the petitioner also ceased to be a member of the District Panchayat. The petitioner contended relying on sec. 69(1) that his term of office as a member of the District Panchayat was co-extensive with the term of the District Panchayat and his ceasing to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat had therefore no effect on his membership of the District Panchayat. This contention is clearly supported by the language of sec. 69(1) which provides that the term of office of a member of the District Panchayat shall be co-extensive with the term of the District Panchayat but there is an excepting clause at the commencement of sec. 69(1) which qualifies the provision enacted in that section and according to the excepting clause the provision enacted in sec. 69(1) cannot operate if it is otherwise provided in the Act. The respondents therefore with a view to repelling the applicability of the provision enacted in sec. 69(1) urged that it was otherwise provided in the Act namely that a person who was elected by the Taluka Panchayat as a member of the District Panchayat under sec. 15(1)(P) shall cease to be such member when he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat. When we asked the respondents as to where this provision was to be found in the Act the respondents pointed out sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) and contended that it was implicit in this provision that a member of the Taluka Panchayat who was elected as a member of the District Panchayat should continue to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat. We do not agree with this contention of the respondents. What sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) provides is that the District Panchayat shall consist inter alia of one member elected by each Taluka Panchayat in the district from amongst its own members other than associate members. The members of the Taluka Panchayat other than associate members constitute the electoral college for the election of one of them to the District Panchayat and therefore the person elected must be a member of the Taluka Panchayat at the date of the election but sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) does not say that such person after being properly elected shall continue to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat and if he does not do so he shall cease to be a member of the District Panchayat. The qualification of being a member of the Taluka Panchayat must be satisfied at the date of the election for sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) says that one member shall be elected by the Taluka Panchayat from amongst its own members there is no further requirement that the person elected shall continue to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat. If the legislative intent was that a person elected to the District Panchayat under sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) should cease to be a member of the District Panchayat when he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat we should have expected the Legislature to express itself clearly to that effect as it has done in the case of a member of the Taluka Panchayat elected by the Chairmen of all the co-operative societies situate within the Taluka from amongst themselves. Sec. 57(1) proviso says in so many terms that where any person in his capacity as Chairman of a co-operative society has been elected a member of the Taluka Panchayat he shall cease to be a member on the expiry of his term as such Chairman or if he otherwise ceases to be such Chairman and where he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat under sec. 57(1) proviso sec. 69(1) proviso provides that he shall also cease to be a member of the District Panchayat if he has been elected by the Taluka Panchayat as a member of the District Panchayat under sec. 15(1)(B)(ii). If there was implicit in sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) a provision that a member elected by the Taluka Panchayat from amongst its own members shall cease to be a member of the District Panchayat if he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat it was unnecessary to enact the proviso to sec. 69(1) providing that where any person who is a member of the Taluka Panchayat in his capacity as Chairman of a co-operative society has been elected a member of the District Panchayat he shall cease to be such member if he ceases to be such Chairman. When such a person ceases to be the Chairman of a co-operative society he would cease to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat under sec. 57(1) proviso and on the construction of sec. 15(1) (B)(ii) contended for on behalf of the respondents as soon as his member. ship of the Taluka Panchayat comes to an end he would straightaway cease to be a member of the District Panchayat. On this view sec. 69(1) proviso would be rendered superfluous and otiose. Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation that the Court should always lean against a construction which has the effect of rendering any part of a statute unnecessary or superfluous. That construction should be preferred which harmonises the different parts of the statute and gives full force and effect to every part. We are therefore of the view that sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) does not provide either expressly or by necessary implication that a member of the Taluka Panchayat elected to the District Panchayat under that provision must continuo to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat and if he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat he would likewise cease to be a member of the District Panchayat. Once a member of the Taluka Panchayat is validly elected as a member of the District Panchayat under sec. 15(1)(B)(ii) it is not necessary that he should continue to be a member of the District Panchayat. His membership of the District Panchayat though it owed its origin to his membership of the Taluka Panchayat does not rest on the continued existence of his membership of the Taluka Panchayat and even if he ceases to be a member of the Taluka Panchayat his membership of the District Panchayat does not come to an end.