Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 519 (UTT)

Gram Panchayat-Makdumpur v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-11-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 26th May, 2015 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No.-6) so far as it relates to the delimitation of the Gram Sabha, Makhdumpur. It is further prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by commanding the respondents not to disturb the existing position, i.e., prior to the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 26th May, 2015 of Village Panchayat Makhdumpur. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority of Gram Panchayat cannot be undermined, as was held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Gaon Sabha, Village Bhaunakpur, vs Chief Development Officer, Rampur and another, 1998 ALL.L.J. 1140. Paras 9 and 10 of the decision rendered in the aforesaid case are being reproduced herein below for convenience:- “In this case, the issue is not so much on what is more important-the liquor shop or the school. The district administration apparently finds the liquor shop more important. The district administration ought to have a little respect for the Constitution of India, particularly Arts. 40 and 47 under Part IV, the chapter on the DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY. Even if the newly added chapter on the Panchayats had not been inserted, Art. 40, in no uncertain terms, states, in effect, that it will be the obligation of the state to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-Government. Thus came the insertion as an amendment to the Constitution of India on Panchayats and giving the Gram Sabha of the village paramouncy, within the confines of law, to function as a nucleous of self-government in the village. Art. 47 discourages intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injuries to health. But, in the case before the Court, the school as a first step of education for the children which has existed for a long time and had received a grant for reconstruction, was pushed and cast away to make way for a liquor shop. Art. 47 discourages intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injuries to health. But, in the case before the Court, the school as a first step of education for the children which has existed for a long time and had received a grant for reconstruction, was pushed and cast away to make way for a liquor shop. This approach of the state respondents is not only disrespect to local government, the Gram Sabha of the village Bhaunakpur, particularly, but shows arrogance of power shorn of understanding of the law and the Constitution of India. Lest the approach of the district administration at Rampur may become a precedent in administration in the other districts of the state, the Court needs to remind those in charge of power and administration that there are certain aspects in the fabrics of village life which are exclusive to the domain of the Gram Sabha and are not to be interfered by the district administration or the State capital. These are matters, like a village school, a village road, a village tank, even questions like whether a village ought to have a liquor shop or not. These are matters which are the basic feature of the Constitution to establish self governing village.” [The facts of this case are different] 3. In the instant case, the villagers of village Makhdumpur held a meeting on 08.07.2015 under the chairmanship of its village pradhan. The resolution stated that injustice has been caused to village Makhdumpur by addition of revenue village Ramnagar, which has been separated from Lakhnauta. The villagers of village Ramnagar were also against inclusion of such village in Gram Sabha, Makhdumpur. 4. The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that when the villagers of village Ramnagar as well as Makhdumpur were not interested in their inclusion to Gram Panchayat, Makhdumpur, therefore, the respondent state should have taken care of their sentiments, as has been prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 11 – F of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (as amended in Uttarkhand). 5. 5. It will be useful to reproduce sub-section (2) of Section 11 F of the aforesaid Act herein below: 11-F. (2) – “The State Government may, on the request of the Gram Panchayat concerned or otherwise, and after previous publication of the proposal, by notification at any time- (a) modify the area of any Panchayat area by including therein or excluding therefrom any area of a village or group of villages; (b) alter the name of the Panchayat area; or (c) declare that any area shall cease to be a Panchayat area.” 6. The aforesaid provision, therefore, empowers the State Government to modify the area of any Panchayat area by including therein or excluding therefrom any area of a village or group of villages, among other things, on the request of Gram Panchayat concerned or otherwise. 7. In the instant case, the objections raised by different persons were considered by a Committee comprising of all the Block Development Officers, Assistant Development Officers (Panchayat) and District Panchayat Raj Officer on 25.04.2015. 8. The said Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of District Magistrate / Chief Development Officer. Annexure 6 to the CA (counter affidavit) contains the description of such proceedings. Internal page 4, paras 4 and 5 deal with village Panchayat, Lakhnauta and village Panchayat, Makhdumpur. The recommendations were made by the Committee on the basis of Government Order dated 25.04.2015 (Annexures 1 and 2 to CA). 9. After considering the objections of the persons concerned, final notification was issued by the District Magistrate, Haridwar on 26.05.2015. Before that, tentative list was published by the District Magistrate, on which the objections were sought. After considering such objections, final list was published in pro-forma 1 A. 10. The final notification has been brought on record (Annexures 2 and 3 to Counter Affidavit of respondent nos. 3 and 4) 11. In judicial review of administrative action, a writ court is required to scrutinize the process of (quasi) judicial decision making and, not necessarily, the decision itself. 12. Judging from this yardstick, this court does not see any reason to quash the notification, which is subject matter of challenge before present writ petition, so far as it relates to the delimitation of Gram Sabha, Makhdumpur. In the instant case, due procedure has been followed by the authorities concerned before taking the impugned decision. 12. Judging from this yardstick, this court does not see any reason to quash the notification, which is subject matter of challenge before present writ petition, so far as it relates to the delimitation of Gram Sabha, Makhdumpur. In the instant case, due procedure has been followed by the authorities concerned before taking the impugned decision. The objection taken by those who were present before the Committee were considered and only then final notification was issued. 13. Before parting with, this Court is inclined to hold that every institution has its own role to play in a democratic set up. Gram Panchayat echoes the sentiments of the villagers. The Election-officers and those responsible for issuing the final notification are bound by some prescribed norms. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 F of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (as amended in Uttarakhand) says that the State Government may on the request of the Gram Panchayat concerned or otherwise modify the area of any panchayat area, among others. It does not stipulate that the State Government is bound to accept the request of Gram Panchayat. The same is not mandatory. The only thing, which is required to be observed, is that such request may be considered by the State Government. The State Government may accept it or may not accept it. Had the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat not been considered, one might have find fault with the same. Those who were present in the meeting to raise their objections, their views were considered by the Committee, and only thereafter final notification was issued. In a democratic set up, the demands of all cannot be accepted. It is sufficient, if they are duly considered, which has been done in the instant case. The Committee constituted for the purpose should not take a decision on political lines. Its decision has to be apolitical, and that has, probably, been done in the instant case. 14. Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.