Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 416 (HP)

NAGAR PANCHAYAT BANJAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-13

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the communication, issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu dated 23rd April, 2013. Besides, further relief claimed by the petitioner, is against respondents No.3 and 4 to refrain from organizing fair of Sri Shringa Rishiji commencing from 15th May, 2013 to 20th May, 2013. It is also prayed that petitioner be permitted to organize the said fair instead of respondents No.3 and 4. The petition is not only resisted by the State Authorities but also by respondent No.3, in whose favour permission has been granted by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner. The petition, in one sense, is also opposed by the Gram Panchayat on the argument that the Deity is resident of Gram Panchayat and the honour of conducting the fair of the said Deity should be given to the Gram Panchayat and not to respondent No.3 Committee. Respondent No.4 has also joined in the objections to the limited extent that respondent No.4 is the Kardar and is, therefore, responsible for maintaining the accounts and proceeds received by the Deity and other managements. It is submitted by respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 has been excluded from the Committee made responsible to conduct the fair commencing from 15th May, 2013. In the first place, the grievance of the Gram Panchayat is essentially one of seeking substantive relief. That submission cannot be countenanced in the writ petition filed by the Nagar Panchayat, Banjar and for that reason the application for impleadment as petitioner, at the instance of Gram Panchayat, should fail and the same is, therefore, rejected. 3. REVERTING to the grievance of respondent No.4, it is pointed out by the counsel for respondent No.3 that inspite of sending invitation to respondent No.4, respondent No.4 has not responded. He further submits that respondent No.4 has been given sufficient representation in the management and conduct of the fair being Kardar. In view of this submission, we find no basis in the grievance made by respondent No.4 before this Court. 4. REVERTING to the grievance of the writ petitioner, the argument proceeds that respondent No.3 cannot be considered as local body. That prerogative is only of the petitioner being the Nagar Panchayat. Similar argument was pursued by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat. 4. REVERTING to the grievance of the writ petitioner, the argument proceeds that respondent No.3 cannot be considered as local body. That prerogative is only of the petitioner being the Nagar Panchayat. Similar argument was pursued by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat. This argument, however, deserves to be stated to be rejected. Section 2(26) predicates the meaning of term 'Panchayat'. It stipulates that 'Panchayat' means a 'Gram Panchayat', a 'Panchayat Samiti' or a 'Zila Parishad', as the case may be. It is indisputable that Panchayat Samiti / Block Development Committee, who has been permitted to conduct fair by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, qualifies this definition. It is a different matter that it is a Committee at the subordinate level than the Zila Parishad Committee but in any case stands higher in position than the Gram Panchayat Committee. About 36 Gram Pachayats are constituents of respondent No.3 Block Development Committee. No doubt, the fair will be conducted in respect of the Deity who is resident of Gram Panchayat, Chaihni but the fair is attended by the locals of all the 36 Gram Panchayats who are constituents of respondent No.3. If the Deputy Commissioner, after considering all aspects of the matter, has thought it appropriate to permit respondent No.3 to conduct fair, we see no reason to interdict that process especially when respondent No.3 also fulfils the qualification of expression 'Panchayat' under Section 2(26). We have no manner of doubt that Deputy Commissioner respondent No.2 has taken all aspects into account before granting permission to respondent No.3 Block Development Committee to conduct the fair commencing from 15th May, 2013. In any case, it is too late to interdict the process having found that respondent No.3 has already acted upon the permission and incurred substantial expenditure to the extent of Rs.10 lacs towards preparatory work for the fair to be commenced from 15th May, 2013. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting this petition. Ordered accordingly. Needless to observe that respondent No.2 shall examine the grievance in relation to the collection received by respondent No.3, if any, during the ensuing fair, in accordance with law.