Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ayodhya Prasad Vajpai, was elected Pramukh of a Kshettra Samiti, with a term of five years. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued two notifications under Sections 3 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, resulting in the reorganization of rural areas, abolition of the Khand (administrative block) pertaining to the appellant's Samiti, and premature termination of the Samiti's existence. Consequently, the appellant lost his office. He filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notifications, but it was dismissed. Aggrieved, he appealed to the Supreme Court, raising four main contentions: (1) the notifications were repugnant to the Act's scheme; (2) Sections 3 and 8 conflicted with other provisions that confer corporate status and perpetual succession upon a Samiti; (3) those sections entailed excessive delegation of legislative functions to the State Government; and (4) they violated Article 14 of the Constitution by providing an indirect method of removing office‑bearers without resorting to prescribed procedures. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions, holding that the notifications were issued under an express grant of power by the Legislature. It noted that the Act was designed to make democracy broad‑based and to impart administrative training to the rural populace. The Court found no repugnancy, no excessive delegation, and no infraction of Article 14. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the government's action.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Excessive Delegation - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, Sections 3, 8 - Challenge to notifications abolishing Khands and terminating Samitis on ground of excessive delegation - Held that notifications flow from express grant of power to Executive by Legislature and Act aims to broad-base democracy and train rural population; delegation held valid (Paras 438 B).
Issue of Consideration
Whether notifications under Ss. 3 and 8 are repugnant to the scheme of the Act; whether Ss. 3 and 8 are contrary to other provisions; whether they involve excessive delegation; whether they violate Article 14
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The notifications were held valid; the delegation of power under Sections 3 and 8 is not excessive and does not offend Article 14. The Government had express power under the Act to reorganize Khands and terminate Samitis.
Law Points
- Power to reorganize Khands and abolish Samities under Ss. 3
- 8 is valid
- delegation of power to executive is not excessive
- does not violate Article 14
