Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2017

[Cites 12, Cited by 43]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2017

W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others),
W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and
W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

                                  1
5.10.2017
      Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
        Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents/State.

Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the intervener.

This order shall lead to final disposal of W.P. No.2702/2017, W.P. No.2739/2017 and W.P. No.2950/2017, which are analogously heard.

2. Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the vires of sub-section (2) and proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of Madhya Pradesh Sinchai Prabandhan Me Krishkon Ki Bhagidari Adhiniyam, 1999 (referred as "Act of 1999).

3. The impugned provisions respectively provides for that the Managing Committee of Water Users' Association shall be a continuous body and that at the first election, all the territorial constituencies shall be elected at one time, out of which 1/3 rd of the members thereof shall retire on the completion of two years, another 1/3rd members shall retire after completion of four years and the remaining 1/3 rd shall retire after completion of six years in office and their terms of retirement shall be decided before the commencement of first election of the members of the territorial W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

constituencies by drawal of lots.

4. That the Act of 1999 was brought in vogue to provide for farmers' participation in the Management of Irrigation System and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section (2)(g) whereof defines "farmers' organization" to mean and include: (i) Water Users' Association at the primary level consisting of all the water users' as constituted under Section 3; (ii) Distributory Committee at the secondary level as constituted under Section 5 and (iii) Project Committee at the project level, as constituted under Section 7. Chapter II deals with Farmers' Organization.

5. Section 3 envisages delineation of water users' area and constitution of an association. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides for every water users' area shall be divided into territorial constituencies which shall be six in case of minor irrigation system and twelve in case of major and medium irrigation system. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 makes a provision regarding composition of Water Users' Association consisting of following members, namely: (i) all the water User's who are land holders in a water User's area; the wives of such land holders, who do not hold land, shall be deemed to be the land holders for the purposes of this Act: And where both the owner and the tenant are land holders in respect of the same land, the tenant; (ii) all other W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

water users in a water users' area; (iii) three ex-officio members one of Amin Cadre and one of Sub-Engineer Cadre from the Water Resources Department or the Narmada Valley Development Department who will Act as Co-ordinator between the Government Departments and the Farmers' Association and the third from the Agriculture Department or Ayacut Department who will Act as Advisor.

6. Section 4 makes a provision regarding constitution of Managing Committee for each Water Users' Association. Earlier, i.e. prior to 24.11.2014, the committee comprising of a President and one member from each of the territorial constituencies of the Water Users' area was elected for a fixed term of five years. However, by virtue of M.P. Act 23 of 2013 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extra ordinary dated 25.11.2014 Section 4 was substituted with effect from 25.11.2014, whereby the Managing Committee of Water Users' Association was made a continuous body, meaning thereby that it has constant succession, in the following terms:-

"4. Managing Committee of Water Users Association. - (1) There shall be a Managing Committee for each Water Users' Association comprising members of the territorial constituencies as specified in sub-section (2) of section 3 elected directly by the water users' as specified in sub-clause (i) of clause W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

(a) of sub-section (4) of section 3 from their respective territorial constituencies. (2) The Managing Committee for Water Users' Association shall be a continuous body, with one third of its elected members retiring every two years as specified in sub- section (3).

(3) The terms of office of the members of the territorial constituencies shall, if not recalled or removed or disqualified under the provisions of the Act, be six years from the date of appointment of the competent authority under sub-section (1) of section 21:

Provided that at the first election, all the territorial constituency members shall be elected at one time, out of which one third of the members thereof shall retire on the completion of two years, another one third members shall retire after completion of four years and the remaining one third shall retire after completion of six years in office and their terms of retirement shall be decided before the commencement of first election of the members of the territorial constituencies by drawal of lots.

(4) The District Collector shall cause arrangements for the election of a Managing Committee constituting of one member from each of the territorial constituency of a water users' area by the method of secret ballot in the manner prescribed.

(5) The District Collector shall also cause arrangements for election of a President of the Managing Committee from amongst the members of the Managing Committee of the water users' association, in the manner prescribed.

(6) If, at an election held under sub-

W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

sections (4) and (5), the President or the members of the territorial constituencies of water users' association are not elected, fresh elections shall be held in the manner prescribed.

(7) The President of the Managing Committee of water users' association shall, if not recalled or removed or disqualified under the provisions of the Act, be in office for a period of two years from the date of election or his tenure as member of territorial constituency whichever is earlier.

(8) The term of office of the President, and the members of Managing Committee of all the water users' associations formed subsequent to ordinary election, shall also expire at the time at which it would have expired, if he had been elected at the ordinary election.

(9) The Managing Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the water users' association."

5. As the Managing Committee of Water Users' Association was transformed from a fixed termed body to that of a continuous body w.e.f. 25.11.2014. To make it workable, proviso is appended with sub-section (3) of Section 4 which provides that at first election, all the territorial constituencies members shall be elected at one time, out of which one third of the members thereof shall retire on the completion of two years, another one third member shall retire on completion of four years, and the remaining one third shall retire after W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

completion of six years in office and their terms of retirement shall be decided before the commencement of first election of the member of the territorial constituencies by drawal of lots.

6. That first election, after the substitution of Section 4 was held on 19.05.2015. Before elections, as provided under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4 lots were drawn. In respect of areas: Enchada (31048), Raikhedi (31050) and Rehti (31051), with which we are presently concerned with, the lots were drawn as under:-

iz:i&d&1 izknsf'kd fuokZpu {ks= ds lnL;ksa dh igpku rFkk inkof/k dk fu/kkZj.k ¼ykV }kjk½ fu;e ß4dß&¼x½ e-iz- jkti= izdk'ku fnukad 1-12-2014 ty miHkksDrk laFkk dk uke & ,aspnk ty miHkksDrk laFkk dk dksM dzekad &31048 ftyk&fofn'kk v-dz- ,oa Vh-lh- dzekad inkof/k ¼o"kZ esa ½ v-dz- Vh-lh- dzekad o"kksaZ dh la[;k 'kCnksa esa ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ 1 Vh-lh- dzekad 1 ¼dksM&3104801½ 6 N% o"kZ 2 Vh-lh- dzekad 2 ¼dksM&3104802½ 4 pkj o"kZ 3 Vh-lh- dzekad 3 ¼dksM&3104803½ 4 Pkkj o"kZ 4 Vh-lh- dzekad 4 ¼dksM&3104804½ 2 nks o"kZ 5 Vh-lh- dzekad 5 ¼dksM&3104805½ 4 pkj o"kZ 6 Vh-lh- dzekad 6 ¼dksM&3104806½ 4 pkj o"kZ 7 Vh-lh- dzekad 7 ¼dksM&3104807½ 2 nks o"kZ 8 Vh-lh- dzekad 8 ¼dksM&3104808½ 2 nks o"kZ 9 Vh-lh- dzekad 9 ¼dksM&3104809½ 6 N% o"kZ W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

10 Vh-lh- dzekad 10 ¼dksM&3104810½ 2 nks o"kZ 11 Vh-lh- dzekad 11 ¼dksM&3104811½ 6 N% o"kZ 12 Vh-lh- dzekad 12 ¼dksM&3104812½ 6 N% o"kZ iz:i&d&1 izknsf'kd fuokZpu {ks= ds lnL;ksa dh igpku rFkk inkof/k dk fu/kkZj.k ¼ykV }kjk½ fu;e ß4dß&x e-iz- jkti= izdk'ku fnukad 1-12- 2014

ty miHkksDrk laFkk dk uke & jk;[ksMh miHkksDrk laFkk dk dksM dzekad &31050 ftyk&fofn'kk v-dz- ,oa Vh-lh- inkof/k ¼o"kZ esa ½ dzekad v-dz- Vh-lh- dzekad o"kksaZ dh la[;k 'kCnksa esa ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ 1 Vh-lh- dzekad 1 6 N% ¼dksM&3105001½ 2 Vh-lh- dzekad 2 6 N% ¼dksM&3105002½ 3 Vh-lh- dzekad 3 4 Pkkj ¼dksM&3105003½ 4 Vh-lh- dzekad 4 4 Pkkj ¼dksM&3105004½ 5 Vh-lh- dzekad 5 2 nks ¼dksM&3105005½ 6 Vh-lh- dzekad 6 2 nks ¼dksM&3105006½ 7 Vh-lh- dzekad 7 4 pkj ¼dksM&3105007½ 8 Vh-lh- dzekad 8 6 N% ¼dksM&3105008½ W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

9 Vh-lh- dzekad 9 2 nks ¼dksM&3105009½ 10 Vh-lh- dzekad 10 4 pkj ¼dksM&3105010½ 11 Vh-lh- dzekad 11 6 N% ¼dksM&3105011½ 12 Vh-lh- dzekad 12 2 nks ¼dksM&3105012½ iz:i&d&1 izknsf'kd fuokZpu {ks= ds lnL;ksa dh igpku rFkk inkof/k dk fu/kkZj.k ¼ykV }kjk½ ty miHkksDrk laFkk dk uke jsgVh ty m-la- ty miHkksDrk laFkk dk dksM dza 31051 ftyk fofn'kk vuqdzekad Vh-lh- dzekad inkof/k ¼o"kZ es½a o"kksZa dh la[;k 'kCnksa esa ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ 1 Vh-lh- dz- 01 6 N% 2 Vh-lh- dz- 02 4 pkj 3 Vh-lh- dz- 03 6 N% 4 Vh-lh- dz- 04 4 pkj 5 Vh-lh- dz- 05 6 N% 6 Vh-lh- dz- 06 6 N% 7 Vh-lh- dz- 07 2 nks 8 Vh-lh- dz- 08 2 nks 9 Vh-lh- dz- 09 2 nks 10 Vh-lh- dz- 10 4 pkj 11 Vh-lh- dz- 11 2 nks W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

12 Vh-lh- dz- 12 4 pkj

7. Admittedly, petitioners in Writ Petition 2702/2017 and Writ Petition 2739/2017 were elected for two years as per the lot drawn in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4. Whereas petitioner in Writ Petition 2950/2017 has been elected for six years.

8. That on completion of term of two years resulting in vacancies of 316 T.C. Members in entire Madhya Pradesh, including the post held by the petitioners in Writ Petition 2702/2017 and Writ Petition 2739/2017 and 79 posts of Presidents, the State Government vide notification No. 82/ih-vkbZ-,e- t-m-l-@fuokZpu 2017/dt.08.02.2017 took decision to fill in those vacant posts by election. The notification specifically mentions that the elections are being held only for the post which has fallen vacant after first election. Clause 1 of notification clarifies the same, which is in following terms:

"1- e/;izns'k flapkbZ izca/ku esa d`"kdksa dh Hkkxhnkjh ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 4¼2½ ds v/khu ebZ 2015 esa fuokZfpr 79 ty miHkksDrk laFkkvksa ds ,d frgkbZ ,sls fuokZfpr Vh-lh- lnL; ftudh inkof/k 2 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr Fkh fnukad 02-07- 2017 dks ,oa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4¼7½ ds v/khu bu laFkkvksa ds v/;{k ds in ij ebZ 2017 esa 2 o"kZ dh dkykof/k iw.kZ gksus ds QyLo:i dze'k% 316 Vh-lh- lnL; ,oa 79 v/;{k ds in fjDr gksaxsA ¼izi=&1½"

9. Being aggrieved with the action taken by the W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

respondents in notifying the election, the present petitions are being filed. Though, the petitioners in W.P.No.2702/2017 and W.P.No.2739/2017 have completed the two years terms, however, the petitioner in W.P.No.2950/2017 having been elected for six years has not completed his term and as the post has not fallen vacant the apprehension raised on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.2950/2017 that election has been held of his territory is misconceived. Since no election is being held for the post held by the petitioner in W.P.No. 2950/2017, the petition being misconceived deserves to be and is dismissed.

10. As regard to the W.P.No.2702/2017 and W.P.No.2739/2017, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that provisions of Section 4 substituted by amendment is self contradictory as the proviso to sub- section (3) of section 4 nullifies and contradicts the provisions of main enactment contained in sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 4, it is urged that the effect of the said proviso is as such that it makes the substantive provision i.e. sub-section (3) inoperable and also nullifies it's application. It is contended that since the term of office of members is for six years the same has been curtailed by changing the nature of Managing Committee and by incorporating the proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 4 which has resulted in creation W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

of three classes, i.e. members having two years, four years and six years term respectively which being discriminatory is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On these contentions the petitioners seek that sub-section (2) and proviso to sub-section (3) be declared as ultra vires.

11. The respondents on their turn justifies the impugned provision. It is urged that it being within the competence of the State legislature to legislate and the State Legislature in its wisdom having transformed the Managing Committee of Water Users' Association from a fixed term to that of a continuous body, the same is neither beyond legislative competence, nor suffers the vice of arbitrariness. It is further contended that with the transformation of a static body into a continuous, a mechanism has been introduced by incorporating the proviso to sub-section (3) as a one time measure applicable on first election. It is urged that the proviso reasonably classifies the members elected in first election. And as it was within the specific knowledge of the petitioner that they are being elected for two years cannot now turn around and question the provision after having subjected themselves to the same. It is accordingly urged that the petitions are devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12. Considered the rival submissions. W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

13. Trite it is that legislative enactment can be struck down only on two grounds, viz.,that,

(i) the appropriate legislature does not have competency to make the law, and

(ii) it does not take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.

14. In State of A.P. and others Vs. Mcdowell & Co. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 709, it is held:

"43 - - - - - - - - -A law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish to enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness - concepts inspired by the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in particular the concept of substantive due process have proved to be of unending controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a severe curtailment of this ground (substantive due process). The main criticism against the ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is characterized, the ground of invalidation W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses

(a) to (g) of Article 19 (1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified.

The Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom."

15. In M.H. Quareshi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, while dealing with the scope and effect of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is held:

"(15) The meaning, scope and effect of Art.

14, which is the equal protection clause in our Constitution, has been explained by this Court in a series of decisions in cases beginning with Charanjitlal Chowdhury v. Union of India, 1950 S C R 869 :(A I R 1951 S C 41) (C) and ending with the recent case of Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, C W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

A Nos. 455 to 457 and 656 to 658 of 1957 D/- 28-3-1958: (AIR 1958 S C 538) (D). It is now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and that in order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification, it has been held, may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. The pronouncements of this Court further establish, amongst other things, that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and that the burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. The Courts, it is accepted, must presume that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the Legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and finally that W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation. We, therefore, proceed to examine the impugned Acts in the light of the principles thus enunciated by this Court."

16. In Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. State of A.P., (2008) 2 SCC 254, it is observed:

"19. The rules that guide the constitutional courts in discharging their solemn duty to declare laws passed by a legislature unconstitutional are well known. There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality, and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt; "to doubt the constitutionality of a law is to resolve it in favour of its validity". Where the validity of a statute is questioned and there are two interpretations, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the former must be preferred and the validity of law upheld. In pronouncing on the constitutional validity of a statute, the Court is not concerned with the wisdom or un-wisdom, the justice or injustice of the law. If that which is passed into law is within the scope of the power conferred on a Legislature and violates no restrictions on that power, the law must be upheld whatever a Court may think of it. [ See State of Bombay Vs. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318]"

W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

17. In the case at hand the legislature with the passage of time after gaining experience thought in its wisdom that the Managing Committee of Water Users Association should be a continuous body which will serve its purpose in consonance with the nature of composition of Water Users Association constituted under section 3 of the Act of 1999 and more particular sub-section (4) thereof. It was to functionalize the same, legislature in its wisdom, as a one time measure, introduced the proviso which is applicable only at the first election. The contention of the petitioners that the proviso cannot be read in contradiction to the substantive provision contained under sub-section (3) is misconceived.

18. In Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and others, AIR 1991 SC 1538, in respect of scope of the proviso, it is held:

"It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field, which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is to confine to that case. Where the language of the main enactment is W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

explicit and unambiguous, the proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from it, by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. The scope of the proviso, therefore, it to carve out an exception to the main enactment and it excludes something which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to operate in the same field and it the language of the main enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at naught the real object of the main enactment, unless the words of the proviso are such that it is its necessary effect."

Thus, in the case at hand the legislature in order to functionalize the metamorphosed Managing Committee of Water Users Association, introduced one time measure as regard to the term which a member could hold at the first election. The same being in- consonance and to achieve object of sub-section (2) of section 4, cannot be said to be arbitrary exercise of powers. As the Managing Committee for Water Users Association has been made a continuous body and term of respective members is of six years it was to in proportionate thereof that 1/3 rd members elected for the first time retired at two years, remaining 1/3 rd W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

members after four years and the rest of the members after six years. The same stand reasonable clarification test as laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further more it is not that the rule of game has been changed after the respective members were elected. Infact their election was in accordance with the proviso contained under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act, 1990 (as brought in vogue with effect from 25.11.2014).

19. As to legislative competence since the petitioner had in questioned the Act of 1999 which has its source under entry 14 and 17 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, it is within the competence of the State Legislature to cause amendment in the provisions of the enactment to make out the object for which enactment has been brought in vogue.

20. In view whereof, the impugned provisions being intra vires cannot be struck down as sought for. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no costs.

                  (Sanjay Yadav)                                     (S.K. Awasthi)
                      Judge                                             Judge
pawar/-

W.P.No.2702/2017 (Raghuvir Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.2739/2017 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.2950/2017 (Balveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others).

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Balveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2017