SMT. GEETAversusSTATE OF U. P. & ORS.

                 (2010] 15 (ADOL.) S.C.R. 1126


A                          SMT. GEETA
                                v.
                     STATE OF U. P. & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 10607 of 2010)

                      DECEMBER 14, 2010
8
      [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

        Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
  Act, 1961 - U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 -
C ss. 7(3), 9(2) and 9A - The 1961 Act provided for offices of
  Pramukh, Up-Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh and Junior Up-
  Pramukh) in eve!}' Kshettra Panchayat - Amendment made
  to the 1961 Act - Non-obstante clause in s. 7(3) of the
  Amendment Act - Interpretation of - Whether after the
D Amendment to the 1961 Act, the right and authority of the .
  senior Up-Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh
  survived or whether the District Magistrate could nominate an
  elected member to be the Pramukh when the post of
  Pramukh fell vacant and till a new Pramukh was elected or
E resumed office - Held: The Amendment Act abolished the
  said post of Up-Pramukh from the Kshettra Panchayats and ·
  provided that in cases where the post of Pramukh fell vacant,
  the District Magistrate was to make such arrangements as he
  thought fit - Though, as per s. 7(3), the Up-Pramukhs would
F still continue to hold office as such till the end of their term,
  but the operation of the non-obstante clause in s. 7(3) shall be
  subject to the intent of the legislature, and must be interpreted
  in line with the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it
   was enacted - Term 'continue to hold office as such' in the
G provision would mean that despite the abolition of the post of
  LUp-Pramukh in the amending Act, those who were elected as
   Up-Pramukh prior to such amendment will just continue as
  such i.e. as Up-Pramukh till his term expires - Expression 'as
   such' has been added by way of caution and to emphasize
H                              1126
            GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                 1127


   that the continuance of Up-Pramukh is limited to just holding A
   the office of Up-Pramukh - Expressions 'as if the said Act were
   not enacted' in. s. 7(3) of the amending Act apply only where
   by way of general amendment of the 1961 Act, the words Up-
   Pramukh have been omitted - Contrary argument of the
   respondent that Up-Pramukhs will continue to exercise all the B
   powers and functions under ss. 82 and 83 of the pre-existing
   provisions of the Act despite the express deletion of those
   provisions by the Amendment Act, cannot be accepted - If
 · that argument is accepted, pre-existing provisions of ss. 82 and
   83, will be revived and ss.9(2) and 9A, brought in by way of C
   amendment and thereby empowering the District Magistrate
   to make arrangements when the office of the Pramukh is
   vacant or when the Pramukh.is unable to discharge functions
   will be unworkable - Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious
   interpretation.

      Interpretation of Statutes - Non-obstante clause - Purport
  and meaning of - Discussed.

       The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
  Panchayat Act, 1961 provided for the offices of Pramukh,         E
  Up-Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh and Junior Up-
  Pramukh) in every Kshettra Panchayat and Adhyaksha
  and Up-Adhyaksha in every Zila Panchayat. The Act was
  amended vide the U.P. Panchayat Laws (Amendment)
  Act, 2007. Consequently common questions of law arose
                                                                   F
  relating to interpretation of section 7(3) vis-a-vis sections
- 9(2) and 9A of the said Amendment Act.

       Dispute arose as to whether after the Amendment to
  the 1961 Act, the right and authority of the senior Up-
  Pramukh to discharge the duties of the Pramukh survived          G
  or whether the District Magistrate could nominate an
  elected member to be the Pramukh when the post of
  Pramukh fell vacant and till a new Pramukh was elected
  or resumed office.
                                                                   H
    1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A      The appellants put forward their case under sections
  9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act. They claimed that as
  per the abovementionei:t provisions, it was for the District
  Magistrate to appoint a. P"ramukh when the ,post of th.e
  Pramukh fell vacant, and the Up-Pramukh could. not
8 automatically   discharge the fUnctions as Pramukh When
  the· post of ·Pramukh fell vacant,.after the enforcement of
  the Amendment Act.               '

      Per contra, the respondent contended that the Up-
  Pramukh would automatically b.~come the Pramukh
C when the post of Pramukh· falls· vacant, as was the
  position before the Amendment Act was enforced; and
  also that the same is justified under the non-obstante
  claus~ in section 7(3) as all]ended. The respondents
  contended that prfor to the amendment, the righ.ts of
D Senior Up-Pramukh included the right to .functio'"! and
  discharge .the duties of Pramukh when the office of
  Pramukh fell vacant; and that the words "continue to
  hold office as such" in the said section 7(3} entitled the
  Up-Pramukh to discharge all the functions and duties of
E senior Up-Pramukh as were prevalent before the
  Amendment Act was introduced.

        Allowing the appeals, the Cour.t

       HELD:1.1. The Amendment Act was introduced in
F 2007 to make the State laws regulating the Panchayats
  compatible with the provisions of Part IX of the .
  Constitution. Before the Amendment Acf was introduced,
  the 1961 Act provided that in case the post of Pramt:kh
  fell vacant, ~he Up-Pramukh would .discharge the
G functions of the Pramukh till a new Pramukh was
  appointed. The Amendment Act abolished the said post
  of Up-Pramukh from the Kshettra Panchayats and
  provided that in cases where the post of Pramukh fell
  vacant, the District Magistrate was to make such
H arrangements as he thought fit. However, as per section
           GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.               1129


 7(3), the Up-Pramukh would still continue to bold office       A
 as. such till the end of their term. [Paras 29, 31] [1139-B;
 G-H; 1140-A]

         1.2. Section 7(3) begins with a non-obstante clause,
   i.e. "notwithstanding any:tf1(r19 to the contrary contained 8
 ' in any other provision of this Act." The said provision
   raises two questions which need to be answered: a)
   whettier the non-oflstante clause would prevaii ·over' the
 · rest of the provisions of the Amendment Act, and to what
   extent and b) how is the expression "shall contihue to C
   hold office as such" in the provtsion to be construed.
' Interpretation of non-obstante ·clauses has come up for
   consideration before tnis Court in a large ·number of
   decisions. In view of the consistent opinion expressed by
   this ·Court on the purport and meaning of non-obstante
   clause, it is "clear that the operation of the non-obstante D
   clause in Section 7(3) of the amended Act shall be
   subject to the intent of the legislature, and-.must be
   interprefed in .line with the scheme of the Act and the
   purpose for which it was enacted. [Paras 32, 33 and 40] · .
   [1140-B-D; 1142-F]                                          E

     1.3. Unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned
 judgment held that the non-obstante clause in section 7(3)
 has to be read as totally obliterating other provisions of
 the Amendment Act and that the Up-Pramukh wh.o were F
 elected prior to the Ame,ndment Ac:t would continue fo
 hold office as if the Amendment Act in its entirety had not ,
 been enacted. However, in view of several decisions of
 this Court, it is held that the non-obstante cause in
 section 7(3) will have a limited operation to the extent of G
 allowing the Up-Pramukh to "continue to hold office as
 such ... as if the said Act were not enacte~." 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 . H
    1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A such amendment will just continue as such i.e. as Up-
  Pramukh till his term expires. The expression 'as such'
  has been added by way of caution and to emphasize that
  the continuance of Up-Pramukh is limited to just holding
  the office of Up-Pramukh. [Paras 42, 43, 44] (1143-A-E]
B
       1.4. The contrary argument of the respondent and
  which weighed with the High Court was that Up-
  Pramukhs will continue to exercise all the powers and
  functions under Sections 82 and 83 of the pre-existing
C provisions of the Act despite the express deletion of
  those provisions by the Amendment Act. This cannot be
  accepted. If that argument is accepted, in that case, the
  provisions which have been expressly deleted by way of
  amendment, like pre-existing provisions of Sections 82
  and 83, will be revived. Sections 9(2) and 9A, brought in
D by way of amendment and thereby empowering the
  District Magistrate to make arrangements when the office
  of the Pramukh is vacant [Section 9(2)] or when the
  Pramukh is unable to discharge functions [Section 9A]
  will be unworkable. Therefore, for a harmonious
E interpretation of the different provisions of the amending
  Act, 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 45 and 46]
  (1143-F-H]
F
       1.5. The expressions 'as if the said Act were not
  enacted' in Section 7(3) of the amending Act apply only
  where by way of general amendment of the Uttar Pradesh
  Kshetra Panchayat and Zilla Adhiniyam 1961, the words
G Up-Pramukh have been omitted. The orders passed by
  the District Magistrates in the instant case, in exercise of
  their power under Section 9(2) and 9A are therefore
  affirmed. [Paras 47, 48] [1144-8-D)

       Aswini Kumar Ghose &Anr. v. Arabinda Bose & Anr. AIR
H
                                       I
          GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                  1131


1952 SC 369; The Dominion of India & Anr. v. Shrinbai A.          A
Irani and another AIR 1954 SC 596 - followed.

     A.G. Varadarajulu and another v. State of Tamil Nadu
and others (1998) 4 SCC 231; /CIC/ Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO
Leathers Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 452; Central Bank of
India v. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 94 - relied on.      B

     Bhanumati etc. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its
Principal Secretary and Ors. (2010) 7 SCALE 398; Madhav
Rao Scindia v. Union of India and another (1971) 1 SCC 85;
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Asha/ata S. Guram (1986)           c
4 sec 447; Union of India & another v. G.M. Kokil and others
1984 (Supp) SCC 196 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:
    (2010) 7 SCALE 398           referred to         Para 5,      D
                                                     19, 30
    AIR 1952 SC 369              followed            Para 34
    AIR 1954 SC 596              followed            Para 35
                                                                  E
    (1986) 4 sec 447             referred to         Para 36
    (1998) 4 sec 231             relied on           Para 37

    (1971) 1 sec 85              referred to         Para 37
    (2006) 1o sec 452            relied on           Para 38      F

    (2009) 4 sec 94              relied on           Para 39
    (1986) 4 sec 447             referred to         Para 41
    1984 (Supp) sec 196          referred to         Para 41      G
    ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10607 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.08.2010 of the High
                                                                  H

                        I .
    1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 40262 (M/
    B) of 2010.

                                   WITH

  C.A. Nos. 10608, 10609, 10610, 10611, 1061.2 & 10613 of
B 2010.

       H.L. Aggarwal, Shobha Dikshit, P.N. Misra, Dinesh Kr.
  Tiwary, Rajat Sharma, Chandan Kr. Ashok Kumar Singh,
  Shalini Kumar, Prerna Singh, Yatish Mohan, S. Mishra,
C Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Devvrat, Manglesh Chaubey,
  Harish Pandey for the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       GANGULY, J. 1. Leave is granted in all these matters:
D 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. 10607 of 2010 @ (SLP No. 26113/2010)
E
        3. In February 2006, Smt. Shanta Devi was elected
    Pramukh in the election of the Kshettra Panchayat of
    Jahanaganj, district Azamgarh.

F        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.
G
         5. In view of some serious allegations agains.t 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,
H
            GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                   1133
              [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

 2007 dated 20.08.2007 (which later on became the U.P.                A
 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.      B
 v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary &
 Ors., 2010 (7) SCALE 398, upholding the constitutional validity
 of1he Amendment Act.                           "·

      6. Accordingly, the District Magistrate restrained Smt.         C
 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        D
 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).
                                                                      E
       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         F
--Article 136 of the Constitution.

  C.A.No. 10608 of 2010 @ SLP No. 26447/2010

       8. On 22.10.2005, the appellant was elected as a member
  of the Block Development Committee from Kshettra Panchayat          G
  Majhwan, Mirzapur from        a  general seat. The seventh
  respondent was elected as the Senior Up-Pramukh. A no-
  confidence motion was pa$sed against the Pramukh as a result
  of which the post of Pramukh fell vacant. The District Magistrate
                                                                      H
    1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   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
8
  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-Prarnukh was the only
  authorized person to act as Pramukh in absence of the duly
  elected Pramukh. Challenging that judgment, the present
C special leave petition was filed before this Court under Article
  136 of the Constitution.

    Civil Appeal No. 10609 of 2010 @(SLP No. 26201/2010)

D     10. On 27.02.2006, Smt. Push pa 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
E 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, the District Magistrate dismissed Smt. Pushpa
F   from the post of Pramukh on 20.07.2010 and under the
    provisions of section 9(2) of the Amendment Act, nominated
    the appellant for the post, by order dated 21.07.2010.

       12. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent filed a writ petition
G (No. 7272(MB)/2010) in the Allahabad High Court. The High
  Court, by way of impugned order dated 26.08.2010, quashed
  the order of the District Magistrate and restrained the appellant
  from interfering with the functioning of the respondent. Hence,
  the present appeal before this court.
H
             GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                    1135
               [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
                                A(

  Civil Appeal No. 10610 of 2010@SLP No. 27470/2010                     A

       13. Smt. Sonu Devi was elected as Pramukh in the election
  of Kshettra Panchayat, Akhand Nagar, Sultanpur district on
  27.02.2006. The sixth respondent was appointed as Up-
  Pramukh. A no-confidence motion was brought against Smt.
                                                                        B
  Sonu Devi on 17.12.2007. Smt. Sonu Devi 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. Sonu Devi then filed an SLP before this Court, which was
  dismissed by a judgment dated 4.05.2010 rendered in                   C
  Bhanumati case (supra).

         14. Thereafter, the District Magistrate dismissed Srnt.
  Sonu Devi from the post of Pramukh on 19.07.2010 and
  nominated the appellant for the said post. Aggrieved, the sixth
  respondent filed a writ petition (No. 7626(M/B)/2010) in the          D
_ Allahabad High Court. The High Court passed an interim order
  relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated
  26.08.2010 in writ petition No. 7272/2010. The High Court
  stayed the operation of the order of the District Magistrate
  dated 19.07.2010 and restrained the appellant from looking            E
  after the work of Pramukh and directed the sixth respondent to
  discharge the functions of Pramukh till further orders of the court
  or till the Pramukh was elected. Hence, the present appeal
  before this court.

  Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 2010 @SLP No. 27491/2010                    F

      15. In February 2006, Smt. Sushila Devi (third respondent)
  was appointed Pramukh in the election of Kshettra Panchayat,
  Sidhauli, district Sitapur. The fourth respondent was appointed
  as Up-Pramukh. A no confidence motion was brought against             G
  Smt. Sushila Devi in 2008. She challenged the Amendment
  Ordinance dated 20.08.2007 by filing a writ petition before the
  High Court which was dismissed on 6.02.2009. She filed an
  SLP before this Court and the same was dismissed by
  judgment dated 4.05.2010 in Bhanumati case (supra).                   H
    1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A      16. Consequently, the District Magistrate dismissed Smt.
  Sushila Devi from the post of Pramukh on 29.07.2010 and
  nominated the appellant for the post on 30.07.2010. Aggrieved,
  the fourth respondent filed a writ petition (No. 7604 (M/B)/2010)
  before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court passed the
8 impugned interim order dated 26.08.2010 relying on the
  judgment in CMWP No. 7272/2010 and directed the fourth
  respondent to function as Pramukh and restrained the appeilant
  from interfering in the functioning of the fourth respondent.
  Hence, present appeal.                                       ·

C Civil Appeal No. 10613 of2010@ SLP No. 35231/2010 (CC
  No.17260 of 2010)

       17. The appellant was elected a member ·of the Kshettra
  Panchayat, Bhaluani district- Deoria. A no confidence motion
o was passed against the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat,
  Bhaluani district- Deoria on 6.8.2010 as a result of which the
  said post fell vacant. On 11.8.2010, the District Magistrate
  nominated the seventh respondent to the vacant post of Block
  Pramukh.
E       18. The eighth respondent challenged the said order by
  filing a writ petition (No. 50547/2010) in the High Court. The
  High Court followed the order passed in CMWP No. 40262/
  2010 and passed the impugned interim order staying the
  judgment dated 11.8.2010. Hence, the appellant (who was not
F a party before the High Court) filed the present appeal before
  this court.

    Civil Appeal No. 10612 of 2010 @ SLP 27404/2010

        19. Smt. Bindu Devi was elected Pramukh of Kshettra
.G Panchayat- Freedabad, district Jaunpur in February 2006,. A no
   confidence motion was passed against her. She challenged the
   amending Ordinance dated 20.8.2010 by filing a writ petition
   before the High Court, and the same was dismissed on
   6.2.2009. She further challenged it by way of an SLP before this
 H Court, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 4.05.2010
            GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                   1137
              [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
·rendered in the Bhanumati case (supra).                              A

      20. Thereafter, the District Magistrate dismissed Smt.
 Sindu Devi from the post of Pramukh on 19.7.2010 and
  nominated the appellant for the said post. Aggrieved, the
 seventh cespondent filed a writ petition (No. 44066/2010) ifl the    8
 -Allahabad High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned
 judgment dated- 28.8.2010, quashed the order of the District
  Magistrate after relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High
 Court in CMWP No. 40262/2010.

      21. Hence the pre_s~nt ~pp_eal.                                 c
                  0            0




     · 22. The cor'nmoh questiqns-of law arising in these appeals
       to
 relate an interpr.etation of se~tion 7(3) vis-a-vis sections 9(2')
 and 9A of the Amenc;;irnedt Act. .     . .

      23. The pr~ci$e qutlstlon i.s.W'1ether after iiie Amen_drnent   D    .   .
 to the 1961 Acf,Jhe· right" and ay!hority of ttie seni9r Up-
  Pr~rnukh to discharge the duties of the Prarnukh would survive
.·or whether the District Magistrjte• can nomir.ate an. elected
                                           0




  member to:.be the Pramukh. when the pcst·of Pramukh falls           .E
 vacant .and till the
              "    . new Pramukh is elected or resumes office.
                       '



        24. One argument raised by the respondent is that the Up-
. Pramukh would (l_utomatically become th~ Pramukh when th(;l ,
   post of Pramukh falls yacant, _as was the positi(?n bef9rErthe
   Amendment Act was enforced. It was also urged that the same F
   is Justified under section 7(3) as amended. Sectioa 7(3) re(:1ds
.. as follows:     ·          · ·                '         ·

      "7. Pramukh and. Up Pramukh-

      (1) xxx                                                         G

      (2) xxx

     · (3) "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
       any other provisiori of this Act, the persons who h~ve been. H
    1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A       elected to the office of the Up-Pramukh before the
        commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Laws
        (Amendment) Act, 2007 shall continue to hold the office
        as such till the expiry of their term as if the said Act were
        not enacted".
B
        25. The respondents argued that the words "continue to
  hold office as such" entitled the Up-Pramukh to discharge all
  the functions and duties of senior Up-Pramukh as were
  preva1ent before the Amendment Act was introduced. Prior to
C amendment, rights of Senior Up-Pramukh included the right to
  function and discharge the duties of Pramukh when the office
  of Pramukh was vacant. This contention of the respondents
  was accepted by the High Court, which is why the appellants
  filed the present batch of appeals before this Court.

D        26. The appellants however put forward their case under
    sections 9(2) and 9A of the Amendment Act. The relevant
    provisions of 9(2) and 9A read as follows:

        "9. Term of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh-
E       (1)   xxx
        (2) Where the office of the Pramukh is vacant, the District
        Magistrate may, by order, make such arrangement as he
        thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of the Pramukh,
F       till the Pramukh is elected.

        9A. Temporary arrangement in certain cases- When
        the Pramukh is unable to discharge his functions owing to
        absence, illness or any other cause, the District Magistrate
        may, by order, make such arrangement, as he thinks fit,
G       for the discharge of the functions of the Pramukh until the
        date on which the Pramukh resumes his duties.

        27. The appellants claimed that as per the
    abovementioned provisions, it was for the District Magistrate
H
          GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                   1139
            [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

to appoint a Pramukh when the post of the Pramukh fell vacant, A
and the Up-Pramukh could not automatically discharge the·
functions as Pramukh when the post of Pramukh fell vacant,
after the enforcement of the Amendment Act.

    28. These are the rival contentions of the parties.
                                                                   8
     29. 1 his Court finds that the Amendment Act was
introduced in 2007 to make the State laws regulating the
Panchayats compatible with the provisions of Part IX of the
Constitution. The relevant portion of the statement of Objects
and Reasons iri the amending Act of 2007 reads:                    c
    "Statement of Objects and Reasons

    The United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U.P. Act
    No. 26 of 1947) provided for the offices of Pradhan and
    Up-Pradhan in every Gram Panchayat and the Uttar               D
    Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
    Adhiniyam, 1961 (U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961) provided for
    the offices of Pramukh, Up-Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh
    and Junior Up-Pramukh) in every Kshettra Panchayat and
    Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha in every Zila Panchayat. It         E·
    was decided to amend the said Acts to omit the provisions
    of the offices in respect of which there is no provision in
    the Constitution namely the offices of Up-Pradhan, Up-
    Pramukh (Senior Up-Pramukh and Junior Up-Pramukh) and Up-
    dhyaksha."                          ·                          F

     30. It is· relevant to mention here that the constitutional
validity of the Amendment Act has been upheld by this court in
the Bhanumati case (supra).

    31. Before the Amendment Act was introduced, the 1961          G
Act provided that in case the post of Pramukh fell vacant, the
Up-Pramukh would discharge the functions of the Pramukh till
a new Pramukh was appointed. However, the Amendment Act
abolished the said post of Up-Pramukh from the Kshettra
Panchayats and provided that in cases where the post of            H
     1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A    Pramukh fell vacant, the District Magistrate was to make such
     arrangements as he thought fit. However, as per section 7(3),
     the Up-Pramukh would still continue to hold office as such till
     the end of their term.

       32. Section 7(3) begins with a non-obstante clause, i.e.
B "notwithstanding anything to the ~ontrary contain.ed in any
  oth'er provision of this Act." The said "provision raises two
  questions which need to be answered:

           a.       Whether the non-obstante clause would prevail over
C                ' "the rest of the provisions of the Amendment Act, and
                    to what extent? '

           b.·    How is the expression "shall continue to hold office
                  as such" to be construed?

D         33. Interpretation of non-obstante clauses has come up for
    · consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions.

          34. In Aswini Kumar Ghose & Anr. v. Arabinda Bose &
     Anr, reported ih AIR 1952 SC 369, a Constitution Bench of this
E Court speaking th(bugh Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri .observed
.. tha! the non-obstante clause can reasonably be read as
    overri{:ling "anything contained" in any relevant existing law
    which .is inconsistent with the new enactment. But His Lordship
  · made it cle~r that the enacting part of a statute must, where it
F is clear, be t~ken to control the non-obstante clause where both
    cannot be read harmoniously (See page 377).

         35. Again in another Constitution Bench judgment of this
     Court in The Dominion of India & Anr. v. Shrinbai A Irani and
     another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 596, Bhagwati J. observed
G at para 10 as follows:

          " ... Although ordinarily there should be a close
          approximation between the non-obstante clause and the
          operative part of the section, the non-obstante clause
H         f'eed not.necessarily and a!ways be co-extensive with the
           GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                     1141
             [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

     operative part, so as to have the effect of cutting down          A
     the clear terms of an enactment. If the words of the
     enactment are clear and are capable of only one
     interpretation on a plain and grammatical construction of
     the words thereof a non-obstante clause cannot cut down
     the construction and restrict the scope of its operation. In      B
     such cases the non-obstante clause has to be read as
     clarifying the whole position and must be understood to
     have been incorporatea in the enactment by the legislature
     by way of abundant caution and not by way of limiting the
     ambit and scope of the operative part of the enactment."          c
     (See p. 599-600)

                                               (Emphasis added)

     36. In Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447, this Court stated that "the              D
expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act ...
is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning
with a view to give the enacting part of the section, in case of
conflict, an overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the
contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is equivalent        E
to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other
Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause ... the enactment
following it will have its full operation ... " (See pages 477-478).

                                               (Emphasis added)
                                                                       F
     37. Further, this Court in A.G. Varadarajulu and another
v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (1998) 4 SCC
231, observed that it is well-settled that while dealing with a non-
obstante clause under which the legislature wants to give
overriding effect to a section, the court must try to find out the     G
extent to which the legislature had intended to give or1e
provision overriding effect over another provision. The Bench
referred to the principle in the Constitution Bench decision in
Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India and another, [(1971)
1 sec 85] wherein this court held that the non-obstante clause         H
           '                                         <



    1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A was a very potent clause intended to exclude every
  consideration arising from other provisions of the same statute
  or other statute but "for that reason alone we must determine
  the scope" of that provision strictly. When the section containing
  the said clause does not refer to any particular provisions, which
B it intends to override, but refers to the provisions of the statute
  generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the
  whole Act and stands alone by itself (See p. 236).

                                          (underlined for emphasis)

C       38. This Court also held in the case of /CIC/ Bank Ltd. v.
    S/OCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 452,
    that the wide amplitude of a non-obstante clause must be kept
    confined to the legislative policy and it can be given effect to,
    to the extent the Parliament intended and not beyond the same
0   and that in construing the provisions of a non-obstante clause,
    it was necessary to determine the purpose and object for which
    it was enacted (See page 465-6).

         39. In Central Bank of India ·v. State of l\erala & Ors,
E   reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94, this Court reiterated that while
    interpreting a non-obstante clause the court is required to find
    out the extent to which the legislature intended to give it an
    overriding effect.

         40. In view of such consistent opinion expressed by this
F Court on the purport and meaning of non-obstante clause we
  , are of the view that the operation of a non-obstante clause in
    Section 7(3) of the amended Act shall be subject to the intent
    of the legislature, and must be interpreted in line with the
    scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted.
G
       4.1 . The learned counsel for the respondent referred to two
  decisions of this Court in order to contend that non-obstante
  clause in Section 7(3) completely overrides all the other
  provisions of the Act. Those decisions are: (a) Chandavarkar
H Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, (b)
            GEETA v. STATE OF U. P. & ORS.                    1143
              [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

 Union of India & another v. G. M. Kokil and others, 1984              A
 (Supp) sec 196. However, none of these decisions supports
 the contention of the respondents.

      42. Unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned judgment
 held that the non-obstante clause in section 7(3) has to be read
                                                                       8
 as totally obliterating other provisions of the Amendment Act
 and that the Up-Pramukh who were elected prior to the
 Amendment Act would continue to hold office as if the
 Amendment Act in its entirety had not been enacted.

      43. However, in view of several decisions of this Court          C
 discussed above, we hold that the non-obstante cause in
 section 7(3) will have a limited operation to the extent of
 allowing the Up-Pramukh to "continue to hold office as such ...
 as if the said Act were not enacted."

     44. In our view, the term 'continue to hold office as such'       D
 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 i.e.
·as Up-Pramukh till his term expires. The expression 'as such'
 has been added by way of caution and to emphasize that the            E
 continuance of Up-Pramukh is limited to just holding the office
 of Up-Pramukh.

       45. The contrary argument of the respondent and which
  weighed with the High Court is that Up-Pramukhs will continue        F
  to exercise all the powers and functions under Sections 82 and
  8~ of the pre-existing provisions of the Act despite the express
  deletion of those provisions by the Amendment Act. This cannot
--be accepted.

      46. If that argument is accepted, in that case, the provisions   G
 which have been expressly deleted by way of amendment, like
 pre-existing provisions of Sections 82 and 83, will be revived.
 Sections 9(2) and 9A, brought in by way of amendment and
 thereby empowering the District Magistrate to make
 arrangements when the office of the Pramukh is vacant [Section        H·
    1144 SUPREME COURT REP</)RTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 9(2)] or when the Pramukh is unable to discharge functions
  [Section 9A] will be unworkable. Therefore, for a harmonious
  interpretation of the different provisions of the amending Act,
  the non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) must be given a
  restricted meaning so as not be in conflict with other provisions
B of the amending Act.

        47. The expressions 'as if the said Act were not enacted'
  ·in Section 7(3) of the amending Act apply only where by way
   of general amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat
   and Zilla Adhiniyam 1961, the words Up-Pramukh have been
C omitted.

       48. We, therefore, affirm the orders passed by the District
  Magistrates in exercise of their power under Section 9(2) and
  9A. We cannot agree with the reasoning to the contrary given
D in the High Court judgment.

         49. In light of the above reasoning, the appeals are
    allowed, the judgments of the High Court in all these cases are
    set aside.

        50. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeals allowed.