Mootham, C.J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Dwivedi, J., and I agree that this petition fails substantially for the reasons which he has stated. Mr. Justice Tandon had referred this petition to a larger Bench as he doubted whether the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 All 109, had been rightly decided. Out of deference to the learned Judge, I think it proper to state shortly the reasons which lead me to take a different view. The learned Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Sections 47-A and 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, could not be extended to town areas substantially on two grounds: first, that only such provisions of the Municipalities Act can be extended to town areas as relate to the carrying out. of functions which a Municipal Board can discharge and, secondly, that the modifications made by the State Government when extending those sections radically altered the policy underlying the Municipalities Act and were therefore illegal.
(2.) Section 87-A provides for the manner in which a motion expressing non-confidence in the President of a Municipal Board may be made; Section 47-A imposes certain obligations on the President against whom such a motion has been passed. The petitioner in the present case attacks only the extension of Section 87-A to town areas.
(3.) The power to extend to a town area an enactment in force in a municipality is to be found in Section 38 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914. The material provisions of this section are Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4), and they read as follows: "(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to all town areas or to any town area or to any part of a town area any enactment for the time being in force in any municipality in Uttar Pradesh, and declare its extension to be subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it thinks fit. (3) When any enactment has been so extended the functions of the municipal hoard shall, so long as the extension is in force, be discharged by the prescribed authority or if none is appointed, the District Magistrate or by the Committee, if so empowered by the State Government. (4) When the committee is empowered under Sub-section (3) to discharge any functions assigned to the municipal board by any enactment so extended, the State Government may declare applicable also to the committee, for such periods as the extension continues in force and subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it thinks fit, any enactment prescribing the status, rights or liabilities of the municipal board in respect of the exercise of such functions." Tandon, J.'s view was that the effect of Sub-sections (3) and (4) was to restrict the power conferred upon the State Government by Sub-section (1) by limiting its operation to the extension to a town area of only those functions which a municipal board can discharge. With great respect, I am unable to subscribe to this view. Sub-section (1) is in very wide terms; it empowers the State Government to extend to a town area any enactment for the time being in force in any municipality in the Uttar Pradesh, subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as it thinks fit. I see no reason why, if such can be avoided, a limitation should be placed on the ambit of the State Government's power under Sub-section (1), and it appears to me that the purpose and effect of Sub-sections (3) and (4) is to make provisions of general application which will, if necessary, come into operation automatically when an enactment which relates to the carrying out of municipal functions is extended to a town area. I do not think that the Court would be justified in holding that because Sub-sections (3) and (4) make provision for the manner of the discharge of functions of a municipal board that only those sections of the Municipalities Act can be extended to a town area which relate to such functions.;