Holding

Rule 4 must be read as mandating a District Magistrate, not an Additional District Magistrate, to conduct a preliminary inquiry against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha; consequently the appeal is dismissed as academic.

Summary

In 1995 Janki Devi Pal was elected Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Complaints against her led the State Government to order a preliminary inquiry under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat (Removal of Pramukhs, Up‑Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1977. The District Magistrate appointed an Additional District Magistrate to conduct the inquiry, and based on the report the State divested the respondent of her financial and administrative powers. The respondent challenged the divestment in the Allahabad High Court, which held that only a District Magistrate, not an Additional District Magistrate, could conduct such an inquiry against an Adhyaksha, and quashed the order. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeal was now academic but the interpretation of Rule 4 caused administrative inconvenience. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s construction, observing that the rule distinguishes between the two magistrates and that the appeal was merely academic, dismissing it with costs and ordering a modest payment to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Enquiry Rules, 1977, requires a District Magistrate, as opposed to an Additional District Magistrate, to conduct a preliminary inquiry against a Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha.
Whether the definition of ‘District Magistrate’ in Section 2(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, applies to the term used in Rule 4 or is repugnant to its context.
Whether the appeal is infructuous because the respondent’s term as Adhyaksha has ended, and whether the Court can pass any consequential order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 20, s. 23(1), s. 23(2)
Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961s. 2(14), s. 29

Subjects

preliminary inquiryZila PanchayatAdhyakshaDistrict MagistrateAdditional District MagistrateRule interpretationadministrative lawUttar Pradesh Panchayat Actappeal dismissedlegal drafting

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A
V.

SMT. JANK! DEVI PAL

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

[R.C. LAHOTI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] B

) Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats (Removal of
Pramukhs, UP Pramukhs. Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules,
1977:
c
r.4-Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha-Complaint against-Preliminary
inquiry--Conducted by Additional District Magistrate-State Government
instituting a formal inquiry and divesting the Adhyaksha of her financial and
administrative powers-Writ petition before High Court allowed on the ground
that inquiry 111as a nullity as it n1as conducted by Additional District Magistrate D
and not by District Magistrate-The contention of State that in view of
provisions of sub-sec.( I) ofs.23,Cr.P.C., Additional District Magistrate is not
subordinate to District Magistrate and is, therefore, co1npetent to conduct an
inquiry against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, reject by High Court-Pending
appeal before Supreme Court term of Adhyaksha came to an end and State
contended that though its appeal has become infructuous, the interpretation E
placed by High Court on r.4 1vas causing serious inconvenience to
ad1ninistration-Held, the decision in the appeal has been rendered merely
acadenzic as in spite of the Court entering into interpretation of relevant
provisions 111ou/d not pass any consequential order as the tern2 of respondent
as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha is already over- It is careless and clumsy drafting F
of r.4 which is responsible for the situation-The draftsman has clearly ·used
the term 'District Magistrate' as distinct from the term 'Additional District
Magistrate'. -The definition of District Magistrale in clause(14) of s.2 .of the
Act is not applicable if there be something repugnant in the subject or context-
The very use of 'Additional District Magistrate' and 'District Magistrate' in
the same rule, consisting of one sentence, clearly suggests that the two terms G
are used in t1110 different 111canings-Contention raised by Stqte runs counter
to the language of the rule-Once the flaw was pointed out by the High Court,
State' sho11ld have promptly removed it by amending the rule instead offiling
special leave petition and keeping the certainty of law in suspension-State is
·one of the largest litigant and s11ch tendency on its par/ of adding to the bulk H
1075
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.
,.
A of pending cases when it can be avoided by taking a quick and conveniem step
of amending its own rule has to be deprecated

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NQ. 2065 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated I J.9:1998 of the Allahabad High
B Court in W.P. No. 1896of1998.

Dinesh Dwivedi and Shail Kumar Dwivedi for the Appellants.

Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ravi P. Mehrotra and P.K.
.. /
Chakravarty for the Respondent.
c
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

In the year 1995 the respondent was elected as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha
in District Sultanpur, State of U.P. Certain complaints were received against +
her where in the State Government directed an inquiry to be made by the
D District Magistrate who in his turn got the preliminary inquiry conducted
through Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Sultanpur. Acting on
the preliminary inquiry report and a supplementary report prepared by the
Additiorfal District Magistrate, the State Government instituted a formal inquiry
and at the same time directed the respondent to· be divested of financial and ·-
E administrative powers exercised by her in the capacity of Zila Panchayat )(
Adhyaksh.

Section 29 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam 1961 (U.P. Act No. 32of1961), (hereinafter 'the Act', for short)
and Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Pachayats (Removal
F of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules.
1977 (hereinafter 'Enquiry Rules', for short) framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 23 7 read with Sections 16 and 29 of the Act provide as
u_nder

Act
G
Section 29. "Removal of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha-(1) If in
the opinion of the State Government the Adhyaksha or the
Upadhyaksha while acting in place of Adhyaksha; willfully omits or
refuses to perform his duties or functions under this Act or abuses the _,
H powers vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the
STATE 1·. .IANKt.DEVI PAL 1077
'
discharge of his duties or becomes physically or mentally incapacitated A
for perfonning his duties the State Gover111nent, after giving the
Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. as the case may. be a reasonable
opportunity for e7'planation n1ay by order re1nove hin1 fro1n office
and such order shall be final and not open to be questioned in a Court
of Law.
B
Provided that where in an enquiry held by such person and in
such manner as may be prescribed an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha is
primefacie found to have committed financial and other irregularities
such Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall cease to exercise and perform
the financial and administrative powers and functions, which shall. C
until he is exonerated of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised
and performed by a committee consisting of three elected members
of the Zila Panchayat appointed in this behalf by the State Government.

(2) xxx xxx xxx
D
(3) xxx xxx xxx"

Rules

Rule 4. Preliminary enquiry--{l) The State Government May, on
the receipt of a complaint referred to in Rule 3, or otherwise appoint E
an officer not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate in
the case of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh and District Magistrate in the
case of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha to conduct a preliminary
enquiry with a view to finding out if there is a prima facie case for
a formal enquiry in the matter.
F
(2) The officer appointed under sub-rule (I) shall conduct the
preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit his report
to the State Government within a fortnight of his having been so
appointed."
G
The impunged order divesting the respondents of her powers was put
in issue by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court of U.P.
at Allahabad. The principal plea raised on behalf of the respondent was that
the complaints against her were false and politically motivated as respondent
did not belong to the same political party as was ruling the State and that
the preliminary inquiry held under Rule 4 was the foundation of the impugned H
1078 SUPREl\1E COURT REPORTS p003l 1 S.C.R.

A order which inquiry, the respondent being an Adhyaksh, could have been
held only by District Magistrilte and not by an Additional District Magistrate,
and therefore, the inquiry \\·lJ~ a nu 1lity having been held by an officer not
competent to hold the same. and hence. irrelevant to serve as foundation for
the impugned order. The High Court by its impunged judgement dated
11.9.1998 delivered by a Division Bench directed the impunged order to be
B quashed holding the preliminary enquiry conducted by an Additional District
Magistrate to be incompetent and vitiated. The submission made on behalf of
the State that District Magistrate included an Additional District Magistrate,
and therefore an inquiry held by an Additional District Magistrate could not
be said to be incompetent, was rejected. On 19. 11.1998 the State filed th is
C petition seeking special leave to appeal under A11icle 136 of the Constitution.
Subsequently, leave was granted and the petition was converted into a Civil
Appeal. The respondent was noticed and has vehemently opposed the appeal.

At the hearing it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of
·u.P. that the appeal has become infructuous in the sense that the term of the
D respondent as Zita Panchayat Adhyaksh has already come to an end but the
State of Uttar Pradesh was interested in having the legal issue decided as the
interpretation placed by the High Court on Rule 4 was causing serious
inconvenience to administration as several complaints were being received
and the District Magistrate could not be expected to be entrusted with the
E burden of inquiring himself into all the complaints.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties it was submitted on
behalf of the appellant State that under Clause (14) of Section 2 of the Act
the term 'District Magistrate' has been defined to mean 'the district magistrate
appointed under Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section
F 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' contemplates the State
Government appointing as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive
Magistrates and one of them being appointed to be the District Magistrate.
The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an
Additional District Magistrate and such Magistrate shall have such of the
powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for
G the time being in force as may be directed by the State Government. Section
23 provides that all Executive Magistrates, other than the Additional District
Magistrate, shall be subordinate to the District Magistrate. The District
Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consi.stent
with the Code as to the distribution of business among the Executive
H Magistrates subordinate to him and as to the allocation of business to an
STATE v. .IANKI DEVI PAL 1079
Additional District Magistrate. The learned counsel for the State submitted A
that sub-section (I) of Section 23 of Cr.P.C. suggests that an Additional
District Magistrate is not subo:dinate to the District Magistrate. and therefore.
is competent to hold an inquiry against Adhyaksha or Uphadhyaksh within
the meaning of Rule 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 23 contemplates business to an B
Additional District Magistrate being allocated by the District Magistrate and
in a sense he is subordinate to the District Magistrate.

Be that as it may, the decision in this appeal has been rendered merely
acade111ic as in spite of this Court entering into interpretation of relevant
provisions would not pass any consequential order inasmuch as the term of C
the respondent as Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh is already over. We are indeed
distressed to notice the tendency on the part of the State Government in tiling
a special leave petition devoid of merit and certainly avoidable and keeping
the same pending in this Comt for a period of over four years. Lot of confusion
·\
and uncertainty must have prevailed in the State of U.P. on account of the
legal issue having been entrusted by the State Government for decision by D
this Court where a minor amendment in the rule would have served the
purpose and clarified the law. Instead of putting its own house in order, the
State Government has indulged into the luxury of litigation by adding to the
number of pendency of cases.

It is careless and clumsy drafting of Rule 4 which is responsible for the E
situation. The draftsman of the rules has clearly used the term 'District
Magistrate' as distinct from the term 'Additional District Magistrate'. The
definition of District Magistrate in Clause ( 14) of Section 2 of the Act is not
applicable if there be something repugnant. in the subject or context. The very
use of 'Additional District Magistrate' and 'District Magistrate' in the same F
rule, consisting, of one sentence, clearly suggests that the t\vo terms are used
in two different meanings. The High Court appears to be right in holding that
an inquiry against a Pramukh or Uppramukh can be held by an officer not
below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate while as against Adhyaksh
or Upadhyaksh-these two being democratically elective offices, higher in G
statcts than that of Pramukh or Uppramukh, the inquiry should be held by the
District Magistrate. The contention advanced on behalf of the State of U.P.
before the High Court as also before this Court runs counter to the language
of the rule drafted by its own executive wing. Once the flaw was pointed by
the High Court, the State of U.P. should have promptly removed the flaw ih
the rule by an1ending the sa111e instead of filing special leave petition and H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A keeping the certainty of law in suspension. The State is one of the largest
litigants and such tendency on the pa11 of the State of adding to the bulk of
pending cases when it can be avoided by taking a quick and convenient step
of amending its own rule has to be deprecated.

The appeal is dismissed with costs. In addition, the State of U.P. is
B directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 to the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.