- (1.) There is a Town Area Committee in the district 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. Petitioner No. 3 to 6 are elected members of the Committee and petitioner No. 2 was elected as Chairman of the Committee. Since none 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 5 of the Act nominated Smt. Viddya 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 19-2-90 the State Government cancelled the earlier notification by which Smt. Viddya 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 20-3-90. After the aforesaid members resigned, the District Magistrate, Etah by an order dated 21-3-90 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. 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.
(2.) 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. Infact 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 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.
(3.) 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.;