Yashoda Nandan, J.@mdashThe following question has been referred by S.N. Dwivedi, J. as he then was to a larger Bench for consideration and its opinion:
Whether the members and chairman of the Town Area Committee elected under the Town Areas Act will become the members and chairman of the Municipality created on the extinction of the Town Area by virtue of Clause (viii) Section 333-A of the Municipalities Act.
2. The Petitioners of the writ petition reside within the jurisdiction of the Notified Area of Sherkot. On 31st January, 1970 the State Government issued a notification u/s 3(1)(d) of the Town Areas Act cancelling with effect from 3rd February, 1970 all previous notifications relating to the creation of the Town Area, Sherkot. On the same day the State Government issued another notification u/s 337(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act hereinafter referred to as the Act creating a Notified Area in Sherkot. On 20th February, 1969 the Town Area Committee, Sherkot decided to prepare a list of persons who would be assessed to tax on their circumstance and property for the assessment year 1969-70. On 28th May, 1969 the Town Area Committee approved the assessment of an amount of Rs. 15,721.50 P. as tax on circumstance and property. The list was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bijnor, for sanction. On 25th February, 1970 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur notified the total assessment of Rs. 55,764.00 as tax on circumstance and property. Another list for the assessment year 1970-71 assessing Rs. 88,044.00 as tax on circumstance and property was published by the Notified Area Committee. The Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1970 who are some of the persons on whom the tax had been assessed in the aforesaid two lists questioned the assessments.
3. It was contended before Dwivedi, J. on behalf of the Petitioners that the District Magistrate, Bijnor, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur had no power to prepare the assessment lists. It was urged that on the creation of the Notified Area the members and chairman of the Sherkot-Town Area Committee automatically became the members and chairman of the Notified Area. It was submitted that the members and chairman alone were entitled to prepare the assessment lists. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau 1972 AWR 359 in support of his contention. In that decision to which one of us (Satish Chandra, J.) was a party, the view was taken that when by means of a notification the State Government cancels an earlier notification creating a town area or a notified area and by another notification issued on the same day u/s 3 of the Act creates a municipal board in their stead, Section 333 of the Act has no application and u/s 333-A(viii) of the Act the chairman and the members of the erstwhile town area or notified area, as the case might be continue as chairman and members of the municipal board. The learned Judges drew a distinction between boards created in an erstwhile vacant area and those brought into existence by transforming pre-existing town or notified areas. To the former class, it was held Section 333 of the Act applies and the concerned District Magistrate or officer appointed by him in that behalf may until a board is established exercises its powers and perform its duties and functions. On the other hand, it was held, that to a municipality of the latter class, Section 333-A(viii) applies and under it the chairman and members of the local body made extinct continue to function as its chairman and members till the constitution of the board. Dwivedi. J. for reasons given by him in detail in his referring order found difficulty in subscribing to the view expressed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau (supra). He has expressed the opinion that whenever a notified area or municipality is created for the first time, irrespective of the question as to whether it has been brought into existence on virgin soil or to borrow his words has arisen "on the ahses of a town area or notified area" it is the District Magistrate who exercises the powers of the notified area or the municipality till the constitution of the committee or the board as might be the case.
4 It will be noticed from the facts narrated above that in the case before Dwivedi, J. it was a notified area that had been created and not a municipal board. The question framed by Dwivedi, J. is thus not quite appropriate in the circumstances of the case. We consequently have refrained the question arising for consideration as follows:
Whether the members and chairman of the town area committee elected or nominated under the Town Areas Act will become members and chairman of the notified area created on the extinction of the town area by virtue of Clause (viii) of Section 333-A of the Act as made applicable to notified areas.
In the connected Writ Petitions Nos. 7727 and 8039 of 1972 a question identical to the one that came up for consideration before Dwivedi, J. arose. K.N. Singh, J. who heard the two petitions consequently directed the abovementioned two writ petitions to be connected with Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1970 and referred a question to a larger Bench in the form as reframed by us above.
5. Section 3 of the U.P. Town Areas Act (U.P. Act No. II of 1914) empowers the State Government inter alia to cancel by means of a notification at any time any notification by which it has created a town area. A town area committee is, like a notified area committee or a municipal board, a corporate body. As soon as by means of a notification issued u/s 3(1)(d) of Act II of 1914, any notification creating a town area is cancelled, the town area as a body administering local self government comes to an end and the town area committee as a corporate body ceases to exist. The consequence of a notification issued u/s 3(1)(d) of Act II of 1914 is that the chairman of the town area committee and its members cease to be the members and chairman of the committee on its extinction.
6. Notified areas are not governed by any separate enactment. u/s 337 of the Act the State Government is empowered to create a notified area. Section 337 itself imposes a restriction on the power of the State Government by providing that notification under that section cannot be issued in respect of a local area at the moment included within a municipality, town area or agricultural village. Thus if the State Government desires to bring into existence a notified area in a local area covered by an existing town area, it must first abolish that town area by publishing a notification u/s 3(1)(d)of U.P. Act II of 1914 cancelling the earlier notification issued u/s 3(1)(a) thereof. When a notified area is created by means of a notification issued u/s 337 of the Act, Section 338(1)(a) thereof empowers the State Government to apply or adapt to such a notified area the provisions of any section of the Act or of any Act, which might be applied to a municipality, or part of such section, or any rule, regulation or bye-law in force or which can be imposed in a municipality under the provisions of the Act or any other Act subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it may think fit. In exercise of powers u/s 338(1)(b) of the Act, the State Government may by notification impose in the whole or a part of such area, any tax which might be imposed therein under the provisions of the Act or any other Act as if the said area were a municipality. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 338 enables the State Government to fix the number of persons who shall form a committee for the purposes of the assessment and recovery of a tax imposed under Clause (b) and in order to arrange for the due expenditure of the proceeds of such tax, and for the preparation and maintainance of proper accounts, and generally for enforcing the provisions of any Section or rule, regulations or bye-laws applied or adopted under Sub-clause (a).
The relevant provisions of the Act which have a bearing on the question before us and their legislative history may now be usefully surveyed. Before the coming into force of the United Provinces Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1949 (U.P. Ordinance No. III of 1949) hereinafter to be mentioned as the 1949 Ordinance, Section 333 of the Act stood as follows:
When a new municipality is created under this Act, the District Magistrate, or other officer appointed by him in this behalf, shall, until a board is established, exercise the powers of a board for the purposes of making preliminary arrangements for the holding of first elections or otherwise and, generally of expediting the assumption by the board of its duties when established.
By a notification dated 22-3-1949, Section 333 in this form was extended to apply to notified areas with appropriate verbal alterations having no material effect on the question under consideration. In 1949 U.P. Ordinance No. III of 1949 was promulgated. Though it was published in the Gazettee on 13-9-1949 by reason of Section 1(2) thereof, it was deemed to have come into force with effect from 1-6-1949. Section 333 of the Act as it then existed was substituted in the following form:
When a new municipality is created under this Act, the District Magistrate, or other officer appointed by him in this behalf, may, until a board is established, exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the board, and, he shall for the purposes aforesaid be deemed to be the board.
Provided always that the District Magistrate or such other officer shall, as early as possible, make preliminary arrangements for the holding of first elections and generally of expediting the assumption by the board of its duties when constituted.
7. By means of the Ordinance above mentioned Section 333-A was introduced in the Act and it was as follows:
Where a municipality is created in place of a town area or notified area, the following consequences shall notwithstanding anything contained in Section 34 of the Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act II of 1914), or Section 339 of this Act, follow as from the date of the creation of the municipality;
(i) all taxes, fees, licences, fines or penalties imposed prescribed or levied, on the date immediately preceding the said date, by the town area committee or the notified area committee as the case may be, be deemed to have been imposed, prescribed or in levied by the board under or accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall, until modified or changed, continue to be so realizable;
(ii) any expenditure incurred by the town area committee or the notified area committee, on or before the date immediately preceding the said date from its funds shall continue to be so incurred by the Board as if it was an expenditure authorised by or under the said Act;
(iii) all property including the rights or benefit subsisting under any deed, contract, bond, security or choses-in-action vested in the town area or notified area, as the case may be on the date immediately preceding the said date, shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the board;
(iv) all liabilities, whether arising out of contract or otherwise, which have accrued against the town area committee or the notified area committee and are outstanding on the date immediately preceding the said date shall thereafter be the liabilities of the board;
(v) the fund of the town area or the notified area and all the proceeds of any unexpended taxes, rolls, fees or fines, levied or realised, as the case may be, by town area committee or the notified area committee shall be transferred to and form part of the municipal fund of the municipality;
(vi) all legal proceedings commenced by or against the town area committee or the notified area committee and pending on the date immediately preceding the said date shall be continued by or against the board;
(vii) any officer or servant who on the date immediately preceding the said date was employed by the town area committee or the notified area committee is full time employment shall be transferred to and become an officer or servant of the board as if he had been appointed by it under the provisions of this Act.
8. Section 3 of the Ordinance was in the following terms:
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that, in the case of any municipality created on or after June 1, 1949 any orders made, actions or proceedings taken, directions issued or jurisdictions exercised by the District Magistrate or the officer appointed by him in that behalf in the purported exercise of the powers under or in pursuance of Section 333 of the Principal Act shall be deemed to be as good and valid in law, as if such orders, actions, proceedings, directions and jurisdictions had been made, taken, issued or exercised under the said section as amended by this Ordinance.
Subsequently the Ordinance was replaced by Section 4 of the United Provinces Municipalities (Amendment) Act No. XI of 1950 - hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1950. This Amending Act received the assent of the Governor on 16-3-1950 and was published in a Gazette Extraordinary of the same day. Section 2 of the Amending Act added Sections 332 and 333-A after Section 332 the ''Principal Act''. Section 333 as added to the ''Principal Act'' was in terms identical with the section bearing the same number as introduced by the Ordinance of 1949. Sub-section (i) to (vii) of the newly added Section 333-A were the same as of Section 333-A introduced by the Ordinance. A new Sub-section (viii) was however added to Section 333-A and is as follows:
(viii) anything done or any action taken, including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order or direction issued, rule, regulation, form, bye-law or scheme framed, permit or licence granted or registration effected under the provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 or the provisions of this Act as applied to the notified area shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act.
9. Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1950 was as follows:
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that, in the case of any municipality created on or alter April 1, 1949, any orders made, actions or proceedings taken, directions issued or jurisdictions exercised by the District Magistrate or the officer appointed by him in that behalf in the purported exercise of the powers under or in pursuance of Section 333 of the Principal Act shall be deemed to be as good and valid in law, as if such orders, actions, proceedings, directions and jurisdictions, had been made, taken, issued or exercised under the said section as amended by this Act.
As far as notified areas were concerned, Section 333 of the Act continued to remain applicable thereto in its original form till 1-3-1968. By a notification published in the U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) of that date, Section 333 in the form in which it was introduced in the Act by the 1949 Ordinance and the Amending Act was extended in its application to notified areas. By another notification of the same date Section 333-A was also extended to apply to notified areas. By a notification dated 2-12-1972 a minor alteration was made in Section 333-A as applied to notified areas. The alteration is, however, of no consequence as far as the question being considered is concerned.
10. Having given the matter careful consideration, I am clearly of the opinion that the Bench which decided the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau (supra) fell in error in construing Section 333 and Section 333-A (viii) of the Act because the legislative history of these provisions was not brought to its notice. Section 333 and Section 333-A of the Act are both in the nature of transitory provisions and must be read in a manner so that both may effectively operate. Section 333, in my opinion, applies not only to notified areas and municipal boards which are brought into existence in a local area which immediately preceding was not under the jurisdiction of any local self-governing body but also to notified areas and municipalities which arise on the ashes of a town area made extinct by a notification issued u/s 3(1)(d) of U.P. Act II of 1914. Section 333-A of the Act, on the other hand, applies only to such notified areas or municipalities as are created in place of town areas or notified areas. I am also of the view that it is Section 333 of the Act which is exclusively concerned with the interim personnel of the newly created notified area or municipality while Section 333-A is only concerned with continuing during the transitory period legislative or administrative actions taken by the preceding local self-governing body superseded.
11. I shall now proceed to give my reasons for the above conclusions. The discussion will for the greater part be based on the provisions of the Act since they also apply with immaterial modifications to notified areas.
12. One of the meanings of the word ''new'' according to Webster''s New Twentieth Century Dictionary is that which ''never existed before''. Every municipality is created for the first time by a notification issued u/s 3(1)(a) of the Act. In either case, whether the municipality concerned is created in an area which was vacant of any earlier town area or notified area or after prior extinction of a town area or notified area, it is literally speaking a municipal board which never existed before as such. As a municipal board, the corporation freshly created undisputably in either case would be a new one though there may have been some other local body existing in that area earlier. If it had not been for the subsequent introduction of Section 333-A of the Act, there would have been no occasion to doubt that the word ''new'' pre-fixed to the word ''municipality'' in Section 333 as it existed before the promulgation of the 1949 Ordinance was of sufficient amplitude to embrace within its sweep both classes of municipalities mentioned above. Literally interpreted, there seems to be no justification for giving to the word ''new'' occurring in Section 333 a restricted meaning and applying that section only to notified areas or municipalities created in vacant local areas not earlier governed by some other local self-governing body.
13. There are weighty reasons which lead me to conclude that Section 333 always applied, both to notified areas and municipalities created in vacant areas as also to notified areas and municipalities created by extinguishing a pre-existing local self governing body. We might fired of all consider the position as obtained before the promulgation of the 1949 Ordinance.
14. Whenever a municipality was created for the first time, a machinery for holding elections and constituting the newly created corporation was essential. This was equally necessary for municipalities created in areas vacant of any earlier town area or notified area as for municipalities created by making extinct an earlier town area or notified area. If the word ''new'' occurring in Section 333 of the Act as it stood prior to the coming into force of the 1949 Ordinance or the Amending Act of 1950 was meant only to denote municipalities created in local areas vacant immediately before of a town or notified area, there was no provision in the Act creating an authority even for holding the first elections for constituting municipalities brought into existence on the extinction of an existing town or notified areas. It is inconceivable that the legislature was oblivious of this difficulty. I consequently see no reason to hold that Section 333 as it originally stood applied only to municipalities created in a local area where there was no town area or notified area immediately preceding. Section 333 before its amendment to my mind, applied to either class of municipalities uniformally and such powers as District Magistrate or officers appointed by then In that behalf had under that section could be exercised by them in respect of both classes of municipalities.
15. Section 333 of the Act as it stood prior to 1949 could well be read as enabling District Magistrates or officers appointed by them, (i) to exercise the powers of a board for the purposes of making preliminary arrangements for the holding of first elections, (ii) to exercise the powers of a board otherwise and (iii) to exercise the powers of a board generally of expediting the assumption by it of its duties when established. Thus read, it is possible to construe Section 333 in its original form as having authorised District Magistrate and officers appointed by them to exercise the powers of newly created boards, other than that of merely making preliminary arrangements for the holding of first elections and expediting the assumption by them of their duties when established. It does appear that Section 333 was being and the legislature intended it to be so construed though it may not have successfully expressed such an intention clearly. The 1949 Ordinance as well as the Amending Act of 1950 are more explanatory and declaratory in character than remedial. Section 3 of the Ordinance and Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1950 both disclose that the legislature always intended Section 333 as originally enacted to be construed as authorising District Magistrates and officers appointed by them in that behalf to exercise the powers of newly created boards even for purposes other than of holding first elections for their constitution. If as held by me Section 333 in its Original form authorised District Magistrates and officers nominated by them to exercise powers of both classes of municipal boards for holding first elections thereto, I see no reason for holding that it was intended that the other powers of municipalities could be exercised by them only in respect of such municipalities as were created in local areas previously vacant of local self government. I See no justification for holding that Section 3 of the 1949 Ordinance and Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1950 were intended to apply only to municipalities created on virgin soil not governed immediately before by another local self governing corporation.
16. Section 3 of the 1949 Ordinance and Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1950 read as remedial measures reinforce the conclusion that Section 333 always applied to both varieties of municipalities. Both in municipalities created in local areas vacant of any pre-existing town area or notified area as well as in municipalities created in areas after the extinction of an existing town area or notified area, District Magistrates acting u/s 333, as it originally stood, must have been exercising powers of such boards for the purposes of holding their first elections as also their other powers. Since doubts appear to have been expressed with regard to the legality of exercise of powers other than that of holding first elections by the District Magistrates and officers appointed by them, the legislative organs of the State stepped in and at first an Ordinance was promulgated and subsequently an Amending Act was passed to remove lacunae, if any, in the Act and for validating such actions taken by them in exercise of such powers. If the word ''new'' occurring in Section 333 as it originally stood is confined to apply only to municipalities created in local areas vacant of any pre-existing town area or notified area, the Ordinance and the Amending Act would be effective only partially as remedial legislations. They would fail to validate actions taken by District Magistrates in exercise of powers of the board in municipalities created on the ashes of an earlier town area or notified area. Such a construction would defeat in large measure the very objection sought to be secured by the Ordinance and the Amending Act and must consequently be rejected.
17. Furthermore it is clear that when in 1949 the Ordinance was promulgated, the legislative organs of the State had become conscious of the fact that doubts had been expressed with regard to the question as to whether the original Section 333 authorised District Magistrates and officers appointed by them to exercise powers of newly created boards for purposes other than of holding elections thereto. Inspite of it, it is significant that Section 333-A as introduced in the Act by the Ordinance consisted only of seven Sub-section and Clause (viii) as introduced in Section 333-A by the Amending Act of 1950 did not form part of it. This, to my mind, clearly manifests an intention on the part of the Ordinance making authority that Section 333 as amended by the Ordinance should apply to all municipalities created for the first time, irrespective of the consideration as to whether they had been created in local areas vacant of any earlier town area or notified area or brought into existence by extinguishing existing local-authorities. Thus since 1916 when the Act came into force containing Section 333 in its original form till 16-3-1950 when the Amending Act of 1950 came into force, the expression ''new municipality'' occurring in Section 333 was intended to apply to either class of municipalities. Normally if the legislature has assigned a particular meaning to a word for a period of about 35 years, there should be strong and compelling reasons for holding that the word has been imparted a new signification. I find nothing in Section 333-A(viii) to compel me to the conclusion that by introducing that Sub-section in Section 333-A, the legislature has expresssed an intention to slash down the scope of the expression ''new municipality'' in Section 333 and to confine its application to municipalities created in areas vacant of any pre-existing town area or notified area.
18. Section 333-A(viii) provides that anything done or any action taken etc. under the provisions of Act No. II of 1914 or the provisions of the Act as applied to notified areas shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the Act. In order that an action taken under the provisions of the Town Areas Act may be deemed to be an action taken under the provisions of the Act as applied to notified areas, there must be a corresponding provision in the Act as extended to notified areas. Before the Bench which decided State of Uttar Pradesh v. Town Area Chhibra Mau (supra), it was contended that there are various differences in the number of members, in the qualifications of members, in the term of the board, between the provisions of the Town Areas Act and the Municipalities Act, and, therefore, Clause (viii) of Section 333-A could not operate so as to continue in office the Chairman and the members of a town area or notified area abolished, as the chairman or the members of the notified area or municipality freshly created. In the decision above mentioned, it was held that:
Clause (viii) notionally makes the election to the Town Area Committee, an election to the Municipal Board. The notification declaring the results of election of the members is to be deemed to be a notification under the Municipalities Act.
Since we are concerned in these references with cases where after extinguishing the existing town areas, notified areas were created, we might examine this aspect of the question with reference to the provisions for the constitution of town areas and notified areas.
19. Section 5 of U.P. Act No. II of 1914 deals with the constitution of town area committees and their members are elected u/s 6-D read with the relevant rules. Section 8-A is concerned with the election of chairman of town area committees. This provision, as far as relevant for our purposes, is as follows:
8A(1). The chairman of every committee shall be an elector of the town area.
(2) The chairman shall be elected by the electors of the town area at an election held simultaneously with the general election of members of the committee.
(3) When a vacancy occurs by reason of the death, removal or resignation of a chairman, or where the election has been set aside in pursuance of an election petition presented under this Act, a chairman shall be elected by the electors of the town area at a date to be fixed by the district magistrate within one month of the vacancy.
(4) ....
(4A) ....
(5) ....
(6) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding sub-sections the District Magistrate or any officer nominated by him in this behalf shall, till a committee is elected, perform the functions of the committee and the chairman thereof and shall for all purposes be deemed to be the committee or the chairman as the case may be.
Section 8-A as extracted above shows that the Chairman of a town area committee may not only be an elected one but in the contingency contemplated by Clause (6) shall be the District Magistrate or his nominee.
20. The provisions of the Act as extended to notified areas dealing with the constitution of notified area committees may now be considered. Section 338(1)(c) empowers the State Government to fix the number of persons who shall form a notified area committee by means of a notification. Section 338(2) is as follows:
A committee appointed under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) shall consist of three or more members to be appointed by the Prescribed Authority or elected in the manner prescribed by this Act, or by rules or partly so appointed and partly so elected as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe.
Thus a notified area committee need not necessarily consist of elected members and may consist of all appointed members or at least some appointed members. Members of notified areas are elected u/s 13-G of the Act as extended to them read with Rule 70 of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964 while their chairmen are elected u/s 43 of the Act as applied to notified areas.
21. A comparison of the relevant provisions of U.P. Act II of 1914 and the sections of the Act as applied to notified areas show that while the chairman of a notified area must be elected, in the contingency contemplated by Sub-section (6) of Section 8-A of U.P. Act II of 1914 the District Magistrate or officer nominated by him functions as chairman of a town area. The District Magistrate or officer nominated by him cannot u/s 333-A(viii) of the Act continue as chairman of a newly created notified area formed after extinction of the related town area because there is no provision applicable to notified areas which corresponds to Section 8-A(6) of U.P. Act II of 1914. Thus in certain situations Section 333-A(viii) is incapable of serving the purpose it was intended to serve according to the decision in State of U.P. v: Town Area, Chhibra Mau (supra).
22. There is yet another difficulty I find in construing Section 333-A(viii) in the manner it was in State of U.P. v. Town Area, Chhibramau. There is nothing to prevent the State Government from simultaneously issuing notifications u/s 3(1)(d) of U.P. Act II of 1914 in respect of two adjoining town areas and creating a single notified area or municipality in their stead. There would have been a separate chairman of each of the town area abolished. Evidently the newly created notified area or municipality cannot have both of them as its chairman. This is a practical and not unreal difficulty that presents itself in interpreting Section 333-A(viii) in the fashion done in State of U.P. v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau.
23. It is thus, to say the least, extremely doubtful if Section 333-A(viii) can be held to be concerned with the personnel exercising the authority of the newly created notified area or municipality. As observed earlier the legislature had at least for a period extending over 35 year assigned a particular scope and meaning to the words ''new municipality'' occurring in Section 333. I am not prepared to accept the view that by enacting Sub-section (viii) of Section 333-A which is of doubtful applicability it altered the scope of those words.
24. The question referred to us may also be considered in the light of a provision which is exclusively applicable to notified areas. As far as notified areas are concerned, it has already been noticed that Section 333 in the form as it stands modified by the Amending Act of 1950 and Section 333-A of the Act had not been extended in their application to notified areas till the year 1968.
25. Section 13-A which applies to notified areas runs as follows:
13-A (1). Except as provided in Section 31 or 31-A there shall be a general election to a board before the expiry of the term or extended term, as the case may be, of the board u/s 10-A on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in that behalf.
(2) When a new municipality is created the first board shall, as far as may be, be constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to general elections to a board.
By reason of Section 3(a) as applied to notified areas, the word ''Municipality'' wherever it occurs in section of the Act as extended to notified area means ''notified area''. Section 13-A continues to be in the same form even after Section 333 and Section 333-A have been extended to apply to notified areas. Section 13-A, as quoted above, to my mind, throws a flood of light on the question under consideration. Section 13-A(1), as quoted above, deals with the general elections of notified area committees whose term or extended term is about to expire. It consequently can apply only to notified areas which have been in existence at least for one term. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-A provides for general elections to ''new municipalities''. If the expression ''new municipality'' is construed as applying only to notified areas created in local areas which were not immediately before being governed by a town area committee made extinct, there is on other provision in existence which provides for the holding of general elections to notified areas created after abolition of an existing town area. Such a situation could never have been intended by the legislature. The inference thus is inevitable that the words ''new municipality'' in Section 13-A applied to both classes of notified areas. This section was in existence when Section 333 containing the expression ''new municipality'' and Section 333-A were applied to notified area. To my mind, it cannot reasonably be held that the same words convey different meanings in Section 13-A and Section 333.
26. Before concluding, I consider it necessary to express my opinion with regard to some of the considerations which weighed with the Bench which decided State of U.P. v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau (supra). One of the factors which appears to have influenced the learned Judges who decided the above mentioned case in coming to the conclusion they did was that if Section 333 applied to both classes of municipalities, viz. those created in a vacant area as also those brought into existence by transforming existing town areas or notified areas there was no occasion for use of the word ''new'' in Section 333. Section 3 of the Act which the legislature had apparently in mind in enacting Section 333 is as follows:
3(1). The State Government may. by notification-
(a) declare any local area to be a municipality;
(b) declare any municipality having a population of less than 1,00,000 inhabitants to be a city;
(c) define the limits of any municipality;
(d) include or exclude any area in or from any municipality, and
(e) cancel any notification under any of the preceding clauses.
(2) ....
27. When a notification is issued u/s 3(1)(d) including or excluding any area in or from any municipality the municipality concerned, is in one way materially changed. The inclusion of an area in such a municipality would result in enlargement of its jurisdiction, creation of new wards therein as well as increasing its membership. In one sense the resulting municipality is not identical with the one that existed earlier. Nonetheless when a notification u/s 3(1)(d) is issued bringing about alterations in an existing municipality it cannot aptly be described as a new Municipality. It appears to me that the word ''new'' was pre-fixed to the word ''municipality'' in Section 333 of the Act to emphasise that the municipalities to which the section applies are only those which have been created for the first time and not those merely altered in jurisdiction, area or status by notifications issued under Clauses (b) and (d) of Section 3 of the Act.
28. Another consideration which seems to have influenced the decision in State of U.P. v. Town Area, Chhibra Mau was that the proviso to Section 333 as it exists empowers the District Magistrate or his nominee to make arrangements for the holding of ''first elections'' to the board. The view was taken that this contemplates that there has been no election till then under the Act. But this is not the situation where a town area has been in existence previously and to which Section 333-A expressly applies. Whenever a new municipality is created for the first time by means of a notification issued u/s 3(1) of the Act or a notified area is brought into existence as a result of a notification u/s 337(1) of the Act, the municipality or the notified area, as might be the case, is the first of its kind in the local area concerned. The elections held to such a corporation are the first as far as they are concerned. If the proviso speaks of ''first elections'', it evidently connotes the first elections to the freshly created corporation and has nothing to do with elections, if any, held for the constitution of town areas or notified areas abolished. In my opinion consequently the proviso does not in any manner affect the scope of Sections 333 and 333-A of the Act as interpreted by me.
29. For the reasons given above, my answer to the question referred in the three cases before us is in the negative.
Satish Chandra, J.
30. I concur.
H.N. Seth, J.
31. I agree.
