V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) THERE is a Town Area Committee in the district of Etah known as Town Area Committee, Amanpur (in short committee). The committee is established and constituted under the U. P. Town Area Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The strength of the members of the Committee is 9 and a Chairman. In the last elections held on 12-11-1988, 9 members were elected as members of the Committee. Petitioners no. 3 to 6 are elected members of the Committed and petitioner no. 2 was elected as Chairman of the Committee. Since non of the members elected on 28-11- 1988 was either woman or person belonging to Safai Mazdoor class, the State Government in exercise of its power under the first and second proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of th? Act nominated Smt. Vidya Devi as woman member of the Committee and Babu Ram as member of the Committee belonging to Safai Mazdoor class. Thus the strength of the Committee became 11 and a Chairman of the Committee. Subsequently, by notification dated 12-2-1990, the State Government cancelled the earlier notification by which Smt. Vidya Devi and Sri Babu Ram were nominated as members of the Committee. After revocation of the aforesaid notification it is alleged that Sarvsri Prem Chandra, Vipin Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Roop Kishore and Rameshwar Dayal who were elected members of the Committee tendered their resignations which were accepted by the Competent authority on 20-3-1990. After the aforesaid members resigned, the District Magistrate, Etah by an order dated 21-3-1990 dissolved the Committee under Sub-section 2 of Section 10-AA of the U. P. Municipalities Act as according to him the number of the members of the Committee for the time being was reduced to less than one-half of the total number of the members of the Committee. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up to this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 21-3-1990 is illegal in view of the fact that the total number of members of the Committee is not reduced to less than one-half of the number of members of the Committee for the time being. LEARNED counsel submitted that the notification by which two members were nominated by the State Government was subsequently revoked and, therefore, strength of members of town area was reduced to ten members i.e. nine being elected members and a Chairman and after the five elected members resigned, the number of the members of the committee for the time being was of five members i.e. four elected members and a Chairman which is not less than half of the total number of the members for the time being and as such the order is Illegal. Sri A. P. Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State countered this argument by arguing that Chairman of the Committee is not member of the Committee and he has to be excluded while determining the number of the members of the Committee for the time being while passing the impugned order. In fact the contention is that the President of the Municipal Board is deemed to be ex-officio member of the Board by virtue of Section 49 of the Municipalities Act. Since there is no such corresponding provision in the Town Area Act or any provision of Municipalities Act extended to the Act, the Chairman of the Town Area Act is not a member of the Committee. Sri Singh has also referred to Section 5 of the Town Area Act for showing that the word 'Member' included only the person elected as member and not the Chairman. No doubt the Town Area Act mentions only 'member' and those sections dealing with matter concerning 'member' only and also mentions both expressions 'Member' and 'Chairman'. It is also correct that the words used in a statute generally have the same meaning whenever used in that statute. In Maxwell interpretation of statute it is observed thus ; "It is, at all events reasonable to presume that the same meaning is implied by the use of the same expression in every part of an Act." But it is also observed further as "But the presumption is not of much weight. The same word may be used in different senses in the same statute and even the same sections." "The presumption" says Craies in his book Interpretation of Statute" that the same words are used in the same meaning is however, very slight and it is proper if sufficient reason can be assigned, to construe a word in one part of an Act in different sense from that which it bears in other parts of an Act." From the aforesaid observations as appears, is that the words in statute generally nave the same meanin| whenever they are wed in the same statute but they can also have different meaning in different provisions of the same statute. In this background we have to look into the various provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act provides that the Committee shall consist of-(a) the Chairman; and (b) the elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen, as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. From this it is clear that the Chairman is integral part of the Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Section 7-B and Section 36 for showing that if the Chairman is not treated to be a member of the Committee, these provisions would result in absurdity. Section 2 (1) provides that an act shall be deemed to be the act of a Committee when it is done with the previous consent of, or of a majority of, all such members for the time being serving on the Committee as are not incapacitated by illness or absence from the Town Area from signifying their consent thereto. If we interpret *the 'member of the Committee' to mean only members, it would follow that the Chairman's vote is not to be counted in determining an act of the Committee. Under Section 7-B of the Act every member of a Committee is liable for the loss, waste or misapplication of any money or other property belonging to the Committee if such loss, waste or mis-application is a direct consequence of his neglect or misconduct, then again difficulty arises to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. If we accept his contention obviously the Chairman cannot be held liable for loss, waste or mis-application. Again Sub-section (2) of Section 36 provides when a Committee is superseded all members of the Committee shall as from the date of the order vacate their offices as such members. This again shows that if the Chairman is not accepted as member of the Committee, then he would continue even if the Town Area Committee has been superseded. We are, therefore, of the view that the expression "member of the Board" occurring in sub-section 2 of Section 10-A A of the Municipalities Act includes the Chairman of the Committee. Our view also finds support from the case reported in AIR 1958 All. 109 Since the Chairman of the Committee is a member of the Committee we hold that the number of members of the Town Area Committee for time being remained five which was not less than half of the number of members of the Committee for the time being.
(3.) FACED with this situation Sri Singh argued that once a notification was issued by the State Government nominating one woman as member of the Committee and another person as member belonging to Safai Mazdoor class, the strength of the Town Area Committee became 12 and any subsequent revocation of the said notification will not reduce the increased strength of the Committee. This argument has no merit. It is relevant to quote Section 5 of the Town Area Act and Sub-Section 2 of Section 10 A A of the Municipalities Act "5. Constitution of Town Committee.-(1) A committee shall be established for each Town Area. (2) The Committee shall consist of- (a) the Chairman, and (b) the elected members who shall not be less than nine and be not more than fifteen, as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify. (Brovlded that if none of the members elected under clause (b) is a woman, the State Government may by* a like notification nominate one woman as a member of the committee, and thereupon the normal composition of the committee shall stand varied to that extent). (Provided further that if none of the members elected under clause (b) belongs to Safai Mazdoor class the State Government may, by notification. nominate one person belonging to the said class as a member of the Committee and thereupon, the composition of the committee shall stand varied to that extent. Explanation-A person shall be deemed to belong to the Safai Mazdoor class if he belongs to such a class of scavengers by occupation or to such of the Scheduled Castes traditionally following such occupation as may be notified by the State Government.)" Sub-Section 2 of Section 10-AA: "(2) Where the number of members of the Board for the time being is reduced to less than one-half of the total number of members of the Board by reason of casual vacancies having occurred for any reason whatsoever, then the Board shall be deemed to be dissolved with effect from the date on which the number of members of the Board for the time being is so reduced or the date of commencement of this section whichever is later." A perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 10-AA of the Municipalities Act would show that it does not use expression 'composition or strength of the members of the Board' but uses the expression number of members of the Board for the time being. The expression 'for the time being' may according to its context mean the time present or denote a single period of time but its general sense is that of a time indefinite and refers to an indefinite state of fact which will arise in the future and which may (and probably wilt) vary from time to time-See Ellision v. Thomas 31 LJ Ch. 867. Thus what has to be seen is the number of the present members of the Town Area and not the strength of the members of the Town Area, Once a notification nominating two members has been revoked, they ceased to be the members of the Board as they cannot be counted as members of the Town Area Committee for the time being. Further a perusal of the two proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act would show that a variation of the normal composition of the Committee is depended upon two things. Firstly, that one of the members elected under clause (b) is woman and belonging to Safai Mazdoor class and secondly the State Government nominates two such persons by a notification and thereupon the normal composition of the Committee stand varied to that extent. Thus the variation to normal strength of the Committee is conditional upon issue of notification by the State Government nominating a woman and person representing Safai Mazdoor class and once the notification nominating such persons have been revoked by the State Government, the strength of the Town Area Committee is reduced to its original number. In the present case although the State Government nominated two persons as members of the Town Area Committee but the notifications having been revoked the strength of the Town Area Committee was reduced to nine members and a Chairman. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that if there is an elected Chairman, he is member of the Committee within the meaning of "member of the Board" occurring in Sub section (2) of Section 10-AA of the Municipalities- Act. Since after the resignation of five members, the strength of the members of the Town Area for the time being was reduced to five members which was not less than half of the total number of the members of the Committee and, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 10-AA of the Municipalities Act.;