Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 734 (MP)

Gram Panchayat, Ghurdong v. State of M. P.

2002-08-01

A.K.MISHRA

body2002
ORDER 1. Petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the notifications dated 26.12.1983 and 8.12.1985, by which it was proposed to include the area of Gram Panchayat, Ghurdong within the limit of Municipal Corporation, Satna Notification was issued on 12.1.1990 for inclusion of the said area in the Municipal Corporation, that has also been impugned. 2. Petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat, Ghurdong was constituted under M.P. Panchayat Act, 1981. Gram Panchayat is bottom unit of the three-tier Panchayat system as envisaged by Constitution of India. Village Ghurdong has been Gram Panchayat from the time State Legislature conceived of establishing Gram Panchayat, the area of Gram Panchayat has developed industrially as well as economically. Panchayat has opened a primary school, constructed roads, fitted street lights. Industries have also come up. Notification No. 1113-18-B-83 was published in M.P. Rajpatra Extraordinary dated 26.12.1983 expressing intention to extend the limits of Municipal Corporation, Satna. The Notification was published in exercise of power u/s 405 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Petitioner alleges the notification does not indicate that the same has been issued after consulting the Municipal Corporation, Satna. Petitioner submitted objections opposing the inclusion on various grounds, inter alia that the step to include a developed Gram Panchayat within the limits of Municipal Corporation will put an end to the activities of development of Gram Panchayats and will be an anti-development step. The objection was forwarded by the Collector to the Secretary, Local Self Government Department on 2.3.1984. Petitioner submits that petitioner was not heard or the objection filed by it. They have not been considered. Petitioner further submits that there has been no notification or any order in writing issued under section 121 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act de-establishing the Gram Panchayat, Ghurdong. Procedure has not been followed and area has been included in Municipal Corporation. Thus notification D-10 is bad in law. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 3, in which preliminary objection has been raised that petition has been filed by Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. There is no resolution of Gram Panchayat empowering the Pradhan to file the writ petition. Gram Panchayat has been superseded and new body has been elected. Petition has been filed at the instance of factory which is likely to be affected by notification due to inclusion in territorial limit of Municipal Corporation, Satna. There is no resolution of Gram Panchayat empowering the Pradhan to file the writ petition. Gram Panchayat has been superseded and new body has been elected. Petition has been filed at the instance of factory which is likely to be affected by notification due to inclusion in territorial limit of Municipal Corporation, Satna. After first notification, second notification was issued as village Amodhakala was left from publication in the earlier notification D-1, therefore, fresh amended notification was issued. No objection was filed by the petitioner in time with regard to notification D-6. Even otherwise, objections were considered by the Government and rejected vide order R-1 dated 11.12.1985. It is not necessary to give personal hearing. Provision of Municipal Corporation Act has been followed for inclusion of the area. 4. A return has also been filed by the respondent No.2, in which similar stand has been taken as that of the respondents No.1 and 3. 5. Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned notification for inclusion of the area in the Municipal Corporation is illegal and is issued without following the procedure of law. Petitioner ought to have been heard. Without de-establishing the Gram Panchayat constituted under the Panchayat Act, 1981, it was not open to include the area in Municipal Corporation, Satna. 6. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3, submits that it is a case where objections were invited and have been rejected. Inclusion of area in a Corporation is legislative function and not open to challenge as the procedure prescribed has been followed. 7. It is well settled proposition that inclusion of area in Municipal Corporation-Panchayat is a legislative function. Section 405 (1) of Corporation Act provides that Governor may, by notification in the Gazette, declare the intention to include within or exclude from the limits of the city any specified area Sub-section (2) of section 405 gives right to local authority having jurisdiction in the said area or any person resident therein to object to such declaration. An objection preferred has to be considered, then power vests in Governor to include within or exclude from the limits of the city any specified area. In the instant case, it is apparent that objections were invited and rejected by the State Government as per order R-1 dated 11.12.1985. An objection preferred has to be considered, then power vests in Governor to include within or exclude from the limits of the city any specified area. In the instant case, it is apparent that objections were invited and rejected by the State Government as per order R-1 dated 11.12.1985. It is not necessary to give personal hearing in such legislative function. It is enough that procedure is followed. Inclusion of such an area in Corporation has been held to be legislative function by the Apex Court in The Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur [ AIR 1980 SC 882 ]. The scope of interference is limited in such legislative function. In Sundwjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others [ AIR 1990 SC 261 ], the Apex Court held in paragraph 23 as under: "23. Reverting to the case, we find that the conclusion of the High Court as to the need to reconsider the proposal to form the Corporation has neither the attraction of logic nor the support of law. It must be noted that the function of the Government in establishing a Corporation under the Act is neither executive nor administrative. Counsel for the appellants was right in his submission that it is legislative process indeed. No judicial duty is laid on the Government in discharge of the statutory duties. The only question to be examined is whether the statutory provisions have been complied with. If they are complied with, then, the Court could say no more. In the present case, the Government did publish the proposal by a draft notification and also considered the representations received. It was only thereafter, a decision was taken to exlude Ulhasnagar for the time being. That decision became final when it was notified under section 3(2). The Court cannot sit in judgment over such decision. It cannot lay down norms for the exercise of that power. It cannot substitute even 'its juster will for theirs." 8. It is not the case of reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, in my opinion, it was not necessary to follow the provisions of Panchayat Adhiniyam, but as area has been included in Municipal Corporation, it is enough that provisions of Municipal Corporation Act are followed and they have been observed in the instant case. It is not the case of reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, in my opinion, it was not necessary to follow the provisions of Panchayat Adhiniyam, but as area has been included in Municipal Corporation, it is enough that provisions of Municipal Corporation Act are followed and they have been observed in the instant case. It is provided in section 406, when an area is included within the limits of the city under section 405, the Municipal law of any other Act dealing with local self-government, as the case may be, if in force in such area, shall be deemed to be repealed therein and provision of Municipal Corporation Act applies. 9. It is not necessary to go into the motive which has been attributed to the Pradhan to file the instant writ petition at the instance of industry. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. Costs on parties. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.