RAMCHANDRA RAM Vs. CHAIRMAN RAJGIR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rajgir Notified Area Committee was constituted by the State Government by a notification under Section 388 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act sometime in the year 1956. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 389, Clause (o), of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act the State Government reconstituted the Committee by the following notification: "Government of Bihar Local Self-Government Department, Patna, the 11th June, 1963. NOTIFICATION. No. 5706/L. S. G. In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (c) of Section 389 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 (B. and O. Act VII of 1922), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to appoint the following persons to be the members of the Rajgir Notified Area Committee in the district of Patna; 1. S, D. O. Bihar shariff, Ex-officio Chairman. 2. S. D. O. P. W. D., Rajgir. 3. Subdivisional Education Officer, Bihar shariff. 4. Medical Officer I/C Field Demonstration Centre, Rajgir. 5. Shri Awadh Kumar Singh, At & P. O. Rajgir. 6. Shri Ramphal Arya. 7. Dr. D. N. Maitra. 8. Shri Yubraj Upadhaya. 9. Shri Ramchandra Ram. 10. Shri Singeshwar Prasad, Rajgir. 11. Shri Janakdhari Singh, Rajgir. 12. Shri Surendra Prasad Tarun, Rajgir. By order of the Governor of Bihar Sd/- K. P. Sinha, Deputy Secretary to Government. On the 28th June, 1963, the Subdivisional Officer of Bihar shariff wrote to the State Government pointing out that serial No. 9 in the list of members is Shri Ramchandra Ram and he was not aware who the gentleman was. Two persons, both named Ramchandra Ram, one of Ward No. 1 and the other of Ward No. VI, however, claimed that each of them was the person nominated lor the Notified Area Committee. The Subdivisional Officer, therefore, requested the State Government to clarify "which Ramchandra Ram of Rajgir the Government had in mind in the above notification" and "his name, parentage, address and occupation may be furnished for future reference", in reply to this letter (Annexure B to the writ application at page 15) the State Government wrote a letter (Annexure C at page 16) stating that the person whose name has been notified as serial No. 9 "was a dealer in tobacco". On receipt of the letter the Subdivisional Officer of Bihar shariff asked the Vice-Chairman of the Notified Area Committee to report which of the two claimants, namely, the petitioner, resident of Ward No. I, or his rival, resident of Ward No. VI, was a "tobacco merchant" (Annexure D at page 17). On the 28th July, 1963, the Vice-Chairman reported that Ramchandra Ram of Ward No. I was a merchant who deals in tobacco and Ramchandra Ram of Ward No. VI does not deal in tobacco. The Vice-Chairman however added that there was a third person named "Ramchandra Prasad" who also deals in tobacco and holds his shop in a rented house in Ward No. III (Annexure E at page 18). On the 8th November, 1963, the State Government wrote a letter to the District Magistrate of Patna stating that the person nominated in the notification was Ramchandra Ram, son of Banshi Lal, resident of Ward No. I (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit of the State Government at page 28). Later on the State Government apparently changed its mind and issued another letter, namely, letter No. 11424, dated the 16th November, 1963, in which it stated that the person whom the State Government nominated was Ramchandra Ram, son of late Gobardhan Sao Agrawal of village Bali, district Gaya, who had a tobacco shop at Rajgir (Annexure IV to the counter-affidavit at page 29).

(2.) In these circumstances the petitioner Ramchandra Ram has applied to the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of quo warranto calling upon respondent No. 3, Ramchandra Prasad, son of Gobardhan Sao Agrawal, to show under what authority he was entitled to hold the office of a member of the Rajgir Notified Area Committee. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Bihar and by Mr. Devendra Prasad Sharma on behalf of respondent No. 3.

(3.) The question arising for determination in this case is whether respondent No. 3 has been validly nominated to be a member of the Rajgir Notified Area Committee by virtue of the notification dated the 11th June, 1963, which is Annexure A to the writ application. Among the twelve names mentioned in the notification, serial No. 9 is "Shri Ramchandra Ram". It is not disputed in this case that there are two persons of the name of Ramchandra Ram residing within the Rajgir Notified Area, namely, the petitioner who is Ramchandra Ram, son of Banshi Lal, resident of Ward No. I, and another Ramchandra Ram, resident of Ward No. VI. Respondent No. 3 is Ramchandra Prasad, and, according to the counter-affidavit of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 3 is also called Ramchandra Bam, son of Gobardhan Sao Agrawal, though he calls himself Ramchandra Prasad. It is manifest that there is a latent ambiguity in the notification (Annexure A) and it is not possible to determine as to who was the person really nominated by the State Government by, virtue of the notification in the absence of extrinsic evidence to show what was the intention of the State Government. On behalf of the petitioner learned counsel submitted that in a case of latent ambiguity it is permissible to resort to extrinsic evidence in order to resolve the ambiguity, and direct evidence of intention may be given for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several persons or things to whom the words of the notification are applicable was intended to be denoted. In support of this argument learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chairman, Serajgunj Municipality v. Chittagong Co. Ltd., 36 Cal LJ 242: (AIR 1923 Cal 32). It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is extrinsic evidence in this case which indicates that it was the petitioner who was intended to be nominated by the State Government in the notification (Annexure A). Learned Counsel in this connection referred to the letter of the State Government dated the 8th November, 1963 (Annexure III to the counter-affidavit). On behalf of the respondents, however, reference was made to the letter of the State Government dated the 16th November, 1903 (Annexure IV to the counter-affidavit) in which it is stated that the person whom the State Government intended to nominate was Ramchandra Ram, son of Gobardhan Sao Agrawal. In our opinion, neither of the two letters, Annexure III or Annexure IV, can be treated as extrinsic evidence in the present case to resolve the ambiguity created by the notification of the State Government dated the 11th June, 1963. The reason is that the State Government may appoint the members of the Notified Area Committee only by a notification under Section 389 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. It is true that extrinsic evidence may be given of the intention of the State Government in case there is a latent ambiguity in the notification, but the question arising in this case is whether the two letters of the Deputy Secretary of the Local Self Government Department (Annexures III and IV to the counter-affidavit) can be validly taken to express the intention of the State Government. Article 166 of the Constitution requires that all executive actions of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. Article 166 further requires that orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor. In neither of the letters, Annexure III or Annexure IV, does the Deputy Secretary state that the letters were issued by him under the direction of the State Government or by order of the Governor. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure III should be treated as a clarification of the notification of the State Government dated the 11th June, 1963, and that the intention of the State Government had been correctly indicated therein. For the same reason we are unable to accept the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the letter Annexure IV should be treated as evidence of the intention of the State Government that it was respondent No. 3, Ramchandra Prasad, son of Gobardhan Sao Agrawal, who was appointed by the notification. The result therefore, is that respondent No. 3 has not established his title to the office of a member of the Rajgir Notified Area Committee by virtue of the notification dated the 11th June, 1963 and he is not entitled to participate in the meetings and other business conducted by the Rajgir Notified Area Committee as a member of that Committee. We accordingly hold that a writ in the nature of quo warranto should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining respondent No. 3, Ramchandra Prasad, son of Gobardhan Sao Agrawal, from participating as a member of the Rajgir Notified Area Committee.