Statutory deeming provision applied to Panchayat limits dispute, preventing dissolution after municipal borough conversion.

Section 310A(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act empowered dissolution and reconstitution of a District or Taluka Panchayat on alteration of territorial limits, but Section 310A(10) excluded cases where the change resulted from alteration of municipal limits or conversion of a municipal borough into a Gram or Nagar. The Supreme Court held that the deeming rule in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, which treated references to a municipal borough as references to the converted city, operated because the Panchayats Act showed no clear contrary intention. The omission of the word "city" did not narrow the provision, so the Panchayats Act continued to apply after conversion and the State Government lacked power to dissolve the Panchayat on those facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exception in Section 310A(10) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 excluded the power to dissolve and reconstitute the Panchayat when the alteration of territorial limits resulted from the conversion of the municipal borough into a city and the applicable provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 were read with the Panchayats Act.

Analysis: Section 310A(1) empowered dissolution and reconstitution of a District Panchayat or Taluka Panchayat when its territorial limits were altered, but Section 310A(10) carved out cases involving alteration by reason of inclusion in or exclusion from a district or taluka of an area consequent upon alteration of municipal limits or conversion of a municipal borough into a Gram or Nagar. The Corporations Act contained a deeming rule in Appendix IV, Paragraph I, under which references in pre-existing enactments to municipal boroughs were to be construed as references to the city after conversion, unless a different intention appeared. The Court held that there was no sufficient contrary intention in Section 310A(10) to exclude the operation of that deeming rule, and the omission of the word "city" did not compel a restricted meaning. The relevant provisions of the Panchayats Act therefore continued to apply after the area became a city, and the High Court's construction was upheld.

Conclusion: The exception in Section 310A(10) applied, and the State Government lacked power to dissolve the Panchayat under Section 310A(1) in the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special local enactment contains no clear contrary intention, a statutory deeming provision in another enactment converting references from municipal borough to city must be given effect in construing the earlier enactment.

---