JUDGMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - I agree with the order proposed by brother Satish Chandra, J., but with respect disagree with him in that the word "Board" used in Section 95 (a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act includes the "President", and hence the representation made by the President under Section 47-A (1) (a) of the Act for the supersession of the Board, though addressed to the State Government, has to be forwarded through the District Magistrate. The Board (Municipal Board) consists of the President and members, but what the President does, or how he acts, is not necessarily for or on behalf of the Board. As provided in Section 47-A (1) (a) of the Act, on the passing of the motion of non-confidence, the President has the option either to resign his office or to represent to the State Government to supersede the Board. Resignation from the office is the natural result of the majority decision of the Board, but the representation for supersession cannot be regarded to be the wish or desire of the Board where the President does not act under the statutory powers or the powers delegated to him by the Board, he may, at occasions, act against the wishes of the Board. Consequently, the President, who is a constituent of the Board, does not always represent the Board, and he cannot be classed as the Board. The defnition of the term "Board" also leads us to the same inference. The term "Board" includes "any member, officer or servant of a Board authorised or required by or under this Act to exercise the power or perform the duty." Where the President acts on his own and is not exercising any statutory or delegated power, to place him in the category of the Board shall lead to confusion.

2. Section 95 (a) of the Act gives power to the State Government to make rules to regulate and govern the correspondence between the Board and the State Government or its officers; while Section 51-A empowers the State Government to prescribe how the President shall address the State Government or any of its Department on any question of general public interest. In case the term "Board" used in Section 95 included the President of the Board, there would have been no necessity to incorporate Section 51-A in the Act. The mode of correspondence between the President and the State Government could also be prescribed under Section 95. When the legislature considered it necessary to incorporate Section 51-A in the Act enabling the State Government to prescribe the mode of correspondence between the President and the State Government, the Courts of law shall not be justified to extend the meaning of the term "Board" for purposes of Section 95.

3. The rules framed by the State Government under Section 95 (a) cannot be utilised to interpret Section 95 (a) . The rules are subordinate to the enactment and cannot extend its scope. Any rule framed beyond the rule making power shall be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Courts shall not he justified in extending the meaning of the term "Board" simply because correspondence between the Board and the State Government concerning the supersession or dissolution of the Board has been prescribed therein, and what the President is advising under Section 47-A is the supersession of the Board. I am thus of opinion that any rule framed under Section 95 (a) cannot regulate the resignation submitted by the President under Section 47-A or the representation made by him for the supersession of the Board.

4. However, on a liberal interpretation of Section 47-A (I) of the Act, in order to give effect to the intention of the legislature, a representation made to the State Government under clause (a) thereof, must be made through the District Magistrate, or, in any case, a representation handed over to him within three days of the communication of the passing of the motion of non-confidence shall be a representation made within the prescribed period irrespective of when the representation reaches the State Government, and such a re