IMPORTANT POINT
The enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non-obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously.

Headnote:(a) U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Section 7(3) vis-à-vis sections 9(2) and 9A – Constitutional validity of the Amending Act having already upheld these provisions have to be construed harmoniously – The non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) must be given a restricted meaning so as not be in conflict with other provisions of the amending Act. (Paras 30 and 46)
        2010 (7) SCALE 398 – Relied upon
        (b) Interpretation of statutes – Non-obstante clause – Non-obstante clause can reasonably be read as overriding “anything contained” in any relevant existing law which is inconsistent with the new enactment – The enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non-obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously. (Para 34)
        AIR 1952 SC 369; AIR 1954 SC 596; (1986) 4 SCC 447; (1998) 4 SCC 231; (1971) 1 SCC 85; (2006) 10 SCC 452; (2009) 4 SCC 94 – Relied upon
        (c) U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Section 7(3) – Non-obstante cause in section 7(3) will have a limited operation – The term ‘continue to hold office as such’ – Would mean that despite the abolition of the post of Up-Pramukh in the amending Act, those who were elected as Up-Pramukh prior to such amendment will just continue as such till his term expires – ‘As such’ means that the continuance of Up-Pramukh is limited to just holding the office of Up-Pramukh. (Paras 43 and 44)
        (1986) 4 SCC 447; 1984 (Supp) SCC 196 – Distinguished
        (d) U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Section 7(3) – The expressions ‘as if the said Act were not enacted’ apply only where by way of general amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zilla Adhiniyam 1961, the words Up-Pramukh have been omitted. (Para 47)
        (e) U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 – Sections 9(2) and 9A – Reading these provisions harmoniously, in case of the post of Pramukh falling vacant after amendment, section 9(2) and 9A come into play – No infirmity in exercise of power by the District Magistrate. (Para 48)
       Facts of the case:
        1. In all these appeals the Pramukhs were dislodged by passing no confidence motion against them. Thus these posts fell vacant.
        2. The District Magistrate, in exercise of the power conferred on him under section 9(2) of the Amendment Act and the Rules thereunder, nominated some persons to function as Pamukhs.
        3. The Up-Pramukhs, aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, filed a writ petition in the High Court.
        4. The High Court quashed the order of the District Magistrate by way of the impugned common judgment, and allowed the Up-Pramukhs to continue as Pramukhs.
       Finding of the Court:
        The High Court erred in interpretation of sections 7(3), 9(2) and 9A.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. Leave is granted in all these matters. This batch of seven appeals raises common questions of law which have been dealt with in this judgment.

2. Facts in each case are separately noted:

C.A.No.......................@ (SLP No. 26113/2010)

3. In February 2006, Smt. Shanta Devi was elected Pramukh in the election of the Kshettra Panchayat of Jahanaganj, district Azamgarh.

4. In 2007, an amendment was made to the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 1961 Act) through Amendment Act no. 44 of 2007 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) to make the State Act compatible with Part IX of which contains constitutional provisions relating to Panchayats.

5. In view of some serious allegations against Smt. Shanta Devi, a no confidence motion was passed against her. Smt. Shanta Devi challenged before the High Court the constitutional validity of the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 dated 20.08.2007 (which later on became the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, i.e. the Amendment Act), by filing a writ petition which was dismissed on 6.02.2009. Against which she filed a special leave petition before this Court. The special leave petition was also dismissed by judgment dated 4.05.2010 in the case titled Bhanumati etc. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary & Ors.,1 2010 (7) SCALE 398, upholding the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act.

6. Accordingly, the District Magistrate restrained Smt. Shanta Devi from functioning as Pramukh in light of the no-confidence motion passed against her and the order of the High Court dated 6.02.2009. Hence, the post of Pramukh fell vacant. The District Magistrate, in exercise of the power conferred on him under section 9(2) of the Amendment Act and the Rules thereunder, nominated the appellant for the post by order dated 2.07.2010. The sixth respondent, holding the post of Up-Pramukh, aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad (CMWP No. 40262/2010).

7. The High Court quashed the order of the District Magistrate by way of the impugned common judgment dated 26.08.2010 (for CMWP Nos. 40262/2010 with 44538/2010), and allowed the Up-Pramukh to continue as Pramukh. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

C.A.No................................@ SLP No. 26447/2010

8. On 22.10.2005, the appellant was elected as a member of the Block Development Committee from Kshettra Panchayat Majhwan, Mirzapur from a general seat. The seventh respondent was elected as the Senior Up- Pramukh. A no-confidence motion was passed against the Pramukh as a result of which the post of Pramukh fell vacant. The District Magistrate appointed the seventh respondent to discharge the functions of Pramukh.

9. The appellant filed a writ petition (CMWP No. 44538/2010) challenging the appointment of the seventh respondent to the post of Pramukh. It was dismissed by the High Court by way of impugned common judgment dated 26.08.2010 (for CMWP Nos. 40262/2010 with 44538/2010), holding that under the provisions of law, the senior Up-Pramukh was the only authorized person to act as Pramukh in absence of the duly elected Pramukh. Challenging that judgment, the present special leave petition was filed before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Civil Appeal No...........@(SLP No. 26201/2010)

10. On 27.02.2006, Smt. Pushpa was appointed as Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, Motigarpur, district Sultanpur. The fourth respondent was appointed as Up-Pramukh. A no-confidence motion was brought against Smt. Pushpa on 4.01.2008. Smt. Pushpa challenged the Ordinance dated 20.08.2007 by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 6.02.2009. Smt. Pushpa filed an SLP before this court, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 4.05.2010 titled - Bhanumati case (supra).

11. Hence,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 1207

IMPORTANT POINT The enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non-obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously.

Cases Referred (9)

IMPORTANT POINT
The enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non-obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously.