GHULAM MOHIUDDIN Vs. MUNSIFF OF ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Dwivedi, J., and I agree that this petition fails substantially for the reasons which he has stated. Mr. Justice Tandon had referred this petition to a larger Bench as he doubted whether the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 All 109, had been rightly decided. Out of deference to the learned Judge, I think it proper to state shortly the reasons which lead me to take a different view. The learned Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Sections 47-A and 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, could not be extended to town areas substantially on two grounds: first, that only such provisions of the Municipalities Act can be extended to town areas as relate to the carrying out. of functions which a Municipal Board can discharge and, secondly, that the modifications made by the State Government when extending those sections radically altered the policy underlying the Municipalities Act and were therefore illegal.

(2.) Section 87-A provides for the manner in which a motion expressing non-confidence in the President of a Municipal Board may be made; Section 47-A imposes certain obligations on the President against whom such a motion has been passed. The petitioner in the present case attacks only the extension of Section 87-A to town areas.

(3.) The power to extend to a town area an enactment in force in a municipality is to be found in Section 38 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914. The material provisions of this section are Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4), and they read as follows: