Sections 140 and 140-B of the Assam Panchavat Act, 1959, operate in different fields and do not provide for the same action. Therefore, the choice of action under either section is not discriminatory.

GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This application under Art.226 of the Constitution is by the petitioner, who is an ex-President of the Golokganj Anchalik Panchavat, since dissolved. A Rule was obtained by him against an order of the Governor of 31st August, 1971 passed under Section 140-B of the Assam Panchavat Act, 1959, as amended, (Assam Act XXIV of 1959), hereinafter called the Act, dissolving the Golokgani Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Goalpara with immediate effect "as Government is satisfied that there is a deadlock in the functioning of the said Anchalik Panchayat".

2. The first meeting of the Anchalik Panchayat, after election, was held on 3rd January, 1969, and ordinarily under Section 19 of the Act it continues to function for a period of four years till a new body is constituted. There is a provision for extension of the life of the Panchayat under that section. It appears the Panchayat had to be superseded once by the Governor for a period of three months on 8th January 1971 under Section 140(1) of the Act, after asking the Panchayat to show cause against supersession. The Deputy Commissioner reported about the serious situation in the Anchalik Panchayat resulting in the complete deadlock of the functioning of the body and recommended dissolution. Even so, the Government gave the body a chance to rehabilitate and function properly and withdrew the order of supersession on 7th April, 1971. As in the case of the budget of 1970-71, the Panchayat could not pass the budget of 1971-72 also, although it held four successive meetings between 5th May, 1971 and 20th July, 1971 As a matter of fact, the budget of 1971-72 should have been passed within 15th of May 1971 (paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit). On account of the deadlock created due to non-passing of the annual budget, the Governor passed the impugned order dissolving the Panchayat. Hence this writ application.

3. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there are two provisions under the Act, namely, Section 140 and S.140-B providing, inter alia, for dissolution of an Anchalik Panchayat and the Panchayat has been discriminated by the impugned order electing a harsher procedure for dissolution of that body. We may, therefore, read the two sections:-

"140(1) If the State Government are of opinion that a Gaon or Anchalik Panchayat persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed upon it by or under this Act or any other Act or abuses its power, they may after giving sufficient opportunity to show cause to the contrary, by an order in writing specifying the reason for so doing, dissolve or supersede for such time not exceeding six months the Panchayat concerned.

X X X X"

Section 140-B, which has been introduced by the Assam Act V of 1967, reads as under:-

"140-B. If for any reason there is a deadlock in the functioning of a Gaon or Anchalik Panchayat or a Mohkuma Parishad, the State Government may dissolve the Gaon or Anchalik Panchayat or the Mohkuma Parishad, as the case may be, and may make any alternative arrangement, as may be deemed necessary, for the working of the Panchavat or the Parishad concerned till it is reconstituted".

4. It is submitted by Mr. Das that since, inter alia, dissolution is the common content in both the sections, the Panchayat in this case has been discriminated by the Governor resorting to Section 140-B instead of S.140(1) where there is a provision for giving sufficient opportunity to show cause against the action. He submits that Section 1411-B is, therefore, clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He sought to depend entirely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dial v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 1518, to support his submission. That was a case in which the Supreme Court had to deal with the provisions of Section 14(e) and S.16(1) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911. On a perusal of the provisions, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"There is no doubt