Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1569 (GUJ)

Dineshbhai Shamjibhai Mata v. State of Gujarat

2016-08-01

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner as Sarpanch of Satapar Gram Panchayat under Art. 14, 21, and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 for the following prayers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). "(A) Be pleased to admit this petition; (B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, to not to record any order pursuant to the issuance of Show-cause Notice dated 8/7/2016, without hearing the petitioner; (C) Pending admission and till final disposal of present petition, be pleased to restrain the respondent from passing the order of superseding the Satapar Gram Panchayat pursuant to the issuance of show-cause notice dated 8/7/2016 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to hear the petitioner; (D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper." 2. The petitioner is the resident of village Satapar and contested the election of the Gram Panchayat and was declared as elected. A show-cause notice dated 8.7.2016 at Annexure-H has been issued by the Development Commissioner, respondent No. 2, to the petitioner as a Sarpanch of Satapar Gram Panchayat on the ground that the panchayat has failed to discharge the duty under the Act and therefore as per the provisions of sec. 116 r/w sec.253 of the Act, why the panchayat may not be dissolved. The same has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds stated in detail, inter alia, that the gram panchayat Satapar is having 7 members + 1 sarpanch. Out of them, 6 embers are affiliated with Bharatiya Janata Party, whereas the sarpanch and one member are affiliated with Indian National Congress and therefore it has been contended that as the petitioner is in minority they have been made to see that the petitioner is ousted from the post of sarpanch of Satapar Gram Panchayat. It is also contended that a no-confidence motion was moved and he was sought to be removed for which Special Civil Application No. 11705 of 2015 was filed and the petitioner is holding the post. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri BM Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Shah for the respondent State. 4. It is also contended that a no-confidence motion was moved and he was sought to be removed for which Special Civil Application No. 11705 of 2015 was filed and the petitioner is holding the post. 3. Heard learned advocate Shri BM Mangukiya for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Shah for the respondent State. 4. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya submitted that the agenda notice was issued on 19.2.2016 and a meeting was scheduled on 26.2.2016 which included the agenda for passing the budget for the year 2016-17. Thereafter, the meeting was convened on 26.2.2016, however, as the quorum was not completed the meeting was adjourned. Thereafter, again, the agenda notice was issued on 7.3.2016 and a meeting was schedule for 19.3.2016. One of the agenda was passing the budget for the year 2016-17. However, as quorum was not present, the meeting was adjourned. Thus, in substance, the budget could not be passed in the meeting which was convened on 16.3.2016 as 6 members voted against the budget. The agenda notice dated 11.3.2016 for the meeting held on 16.3.2016 is produced at Annexure-E. Again, the TDO, Anjar (Kutch) called the meeting for passing the budget for the year 2016-17 for the gram panchayat Satapar and the meeting was scheduled to be held on 21.4.2016. However again, the budget could not be passed and the TDO forwarded the report dated 21.4.2016 to the DDO informing that the budget for the year 2016-17 of Satapar Gram Panchayat could not be passed as 4 members had voted against and 2 members voted in favour of the budget. 5. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya submitted that respondent No. 2, in exercise of power under sec. 253 of the Act has issued a show-cause notice dated 8.7.2016 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the gram panchayat should not be suspended since the budget for the year 2016-17 has not been passed as per the provisions of sec. 116(3) of the Act. A copy of the said show-cause notice is at Annexure-H which has been assailed in the present petition. 6. The DDO has forwarded a letter dated 14.7.2016 along with a copy of the show-cause notice dated 8.7.2016 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the panchayat should not be suspended since the budget has not been passed as per the provisions of sec. 253 of the Act. 6. The DDO has forwarded a letter dated 14.7.2016 along with a copy of the show-cause notice dated 8.7.2016 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why the panchayat should not be suspended since the budget has not been passed as per the provisions of sec. 253 of the Act. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya submitted that the petitioner made written request stating that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for calling the meeting of the gram panchayat for passing the budget, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-K. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya referred to the provisions of sec. 253 of the Act and submitted that the provisions are not mandatory and he pointedly referred to the provisions of sec. 116 with regard to passing of the annual budget. He submitted that sec.253 of the Act clearly provides for giving an opportunity to the panchayat for rendering an explanation which has not been given and therefore the present petition is filed. He submitted that powers are exercised arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat reported in 2003 (1) GLH 239 in the case of Shrimati Shantaben Popatbhai Makwana and anr. v. Development Commissioner & anr. that non-passing of the budget itself is not a disqualification for suspending the panchayat or dissolving the panchayat. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this High Court reported in 2003 (1) GLR 676 in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat v. P.D. Vaghela and ors. and emphasised that as observed, the failure to pass the budget would not ipso facto result in dissolution of the panchayat. Learned advocate Shri Mangukiya emphasised that failure to furnish is a ground for dissolution and competent authority can exercise the power of dissolution after complying with the requirements of sec. 253 of the Act and submitted that it provides for giving an opportunity of hearing to give explanation and thereafter an opinion may be formed as to whether the panchayat has failed in performing the duty. 8. 253 of the Act and submitted that it provides for giving an opportunity of hearing to give explanation and thereafter an opinion may be formed as to whether the panchayat has failed in performing the duty. 8. He, therefore, submitted that the show-cause notice may be set aside or an opportunity may be given to convene the meeting of the panchayat as it is the collective decision of the panchayat for which the resolution will have to be passed by the panchayat and on the basis of the resolution passed by the panchayat, the petitioner can move respondent No. 3 DDO for representing the case of the panchayat for an explanation for not exercising the power under sec. 253 of the Act. He submitted that the petitioner as a sarpanch himself cannot take any decision and therefore in order to provide an opportunity to the panchayat he may be allowed to convene the meeting of the panchayat and have the resolution passed. He also categorically stated that it may include an opportunity for passing a fresh resolution for passing of the budget. He therefore submitted that till then the interim order regarding stay of the proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 8.7.2016 may be granted. 9. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah, however, strenuously resisted the petition and submitted that the sequence of events may be considered and as the cat is out of the bag, the petitioner as the sarpanch desires to take the opportunity for passing the budget, though the panchayat has failed to pass the budget in spite of sufficient opportunity for about 4 months. She submitted that not only that even after the notice has been issued, the petitioner could have convened the meeting of the panchayat and could have proceeded to pass appropriate resolution including that of passing of the budget. Therefore, learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah submitted that once the show-cause notice has been issued in exercise of statutory power under sec. 253 of the Act on failure of the panchayat to pass the budget, now the petitioner sarpanch cannot claim any further right or one more inning for the purpose of passing the budget. 10. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah submitted that in exercise of statutory powers under sec. 253 of the Act on failure of the panchayat to pass the budget, now the petitioner sarpanch cannot claim any further right or one more inning for the purpose of passing the budget. 10. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah submitted that in exercise of statutory powers under sec. 253 read with 116 of the Act the authority has issued such show-cause notice as the petitioner has failed to pass the budget for the year 2016-17. For that purpose, she pointedly referred to sec. 116(4) of the Act. She, therefore, submitted that again only a show-cause notice has been issued where the petitioner or the panchayat can given an explanation and in fact pursuant to the show-cause notice the petitioner had remained present and still he could have the opportunity of submitting any explanation for not passing the budget but he cannot be permitted to get the time in the guise of offering explanation to call the meeting of the panchayat to pass the budget. 11. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah pointedly referred to page 45 and 46 and also the notice at Annexure-H. She submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna or play any mischief. When the notice has been issued and is called upon to give the explanation the petitioner desires to convene the meeting for the purpose of passing of the budget. She therefore submitted that his conduct is also required to be considered. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah emphasised that in spite of efforts made, admittedly, the budget could not be passed and therefore it is not the case that there is no meeting or there is no opportunity for considering and passing of the budget. She submitted that having failed to pass the budget in spite of sufficient opportunity for 4 months after issuance of the show-cause notice, now it is too late to seek any such time. 12. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah also referred to the judgment of this High Court reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1092 in the case of Pariya Gram Panchayat v. Development Commissioner and emphasised the observations made in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8. It was emphasised that the earlier judgment in the case of Nathalal has been considered and also the judgment reported in 2003 (2) GLR 676 in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat v. P.D. Vaghela and ors. It was emphasised that the earlier judgment in the case of Nathalal has been considered and also the judgment reported in 2003 (2) GLR 676 in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat v. P.D. Vaghela and ors. has been considered and it has been observed that in the case of Nathalal Manilal Patel [ 1991 (2) GLR 811 ] the budget was passed in the month of May of the relevant year and therefore the discussion was made in that context as to whether the provision is directory or mandatory. She emphasised that it has been clearly observed, "Thus, in my opinion, in view of the provisions of the Panchayats Act since the budget was not passed, the State Government was justified in exercising power under sec. 253 of the Panchayats Act." 13. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah also submitted that in fact the petition is designed with such oblique motive and in fact it is premature for the purpose of challenging the show-cause notice at this stage. She submitted that the show-cause notice is issued in purported exercise of statutory power under sec. 253, where the petitioner as a sarpanch is called upon to give explanation for the panchayat collectively and he could offer the explanation for not passing the budget which may be considered by the authority. However, if any order is passed, it would be subject to further recourse but the present show-cause notice cannot be stayed or interjected at this stage which is issued in exercise of statutory power. Similarly, it was submitted that the submission about the rules of natural justice are misconceived as could be seen from the record itself. She submitted that in fact the petitioner had remained present pursuant to the show-cause notice and an audience has been provided and therefore such submissions are thoroughly misconceived. She therefore submitted that no further time could be granted to fill up the lacuna as stated above to make further attempt to pass the budget when already a show-cause notice has been issued for such a lapse in performance of duty. She submitted that such budgetary provision is required to be followed as the passing of budget would show how the expenses are required to be incurred and for the purpose of financial discipline it is necessary, as without such budget the expenditure could not be incurred. Learned Government Pleader Ms. She submitted that such budgetary provision is required to be followed as the passing of budget would show how the expenses are required to be incurred and for the purpose of financial discipline it is necessary, as without such budget the expenditure could not be incurred. Learned Government Pleader Ms. Shah, therefore, submitted that the present petition may not be entertained. 14. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submitted that the judgment of the High Court referred to and relied upon by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya in the case of Anjar Municipality and ors. v. JM Vyas or his Successor-in-office Dy. Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Development Department and ors., reported in 1999 (3) GLR 1892 is with regard to the powers under the Gujarat Municipality Act which is a different statute altogether. Similarly, she pointedly referred to the observations made in the judgment in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat (supra) and submitted that what has been provided is that the powers under sec. 253 could be exercised on the basis of formation of an opinion to come to the conclusion that the panchayat has failed to pass the budget. Therefore, as observed in this judgment, the suspension is not automatic and the provisions are also not mandatory but it empowers respondent No. 2 to issue such a notice and after considering the explanation appropriate decision could be taken if the budget is not passed. In other words, all that is provided is forming of an opinion after consideration of the explanation. She therefore submitted that as only a show-cause notice has been issued, the court may not intervene at this stage as the petition itself is premature. 15. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserves consideration. 16. The background of facts as stated hereinabove clearly suggest that Satapar Gram Panchayat had failed to pass the budget. It is not the case that the meeting could not be convened, but it is very much clear in light of the discussion made hereinabove that in the meeting the majority voted against passing the budget and therefore it could not be passed. The submission made by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya that the show-cause notice may be stayed to enable the petitioner as sarpanch to have the sense of the collective body, that is, the panchayat, cannot be readily accepted. The submission made by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya that the show-cause notice may be stayed to enable the petitioner as sarpanch to have the sense of the collective body, that is, the panchayat, cannot be readily accepted. In fact, learned advocate Shri Mangukiya has also made it clear that the meeting of the panchayat may be permitted to be convened for the purpose of passing the resolution and he also made it clear that it may also include passing the resolution for the budget. Thus, what is submitted is that he should have one more opportunity or one more inning for the purpose of passing the budget and the proceedings in exercise of the statutory provision even at the show-cause stage may be stalled. 17. The provisions of sec. 116 of the Act refer to "Budget Estimates" and sec. 116(4) provide, "Where any village panchayat has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3), it shall be lawful for the State Government to form an opinion that the panchayat is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it or functions entrusted to it under the provisions of this Act." Thus, section 116 which refers to the budget estimates provide for the mechanism and the procedure which is required to be followed and completed as contemplated under the statutory provision for the future estimate of expenses to be incurred and therefore an obligation is cast upon the panchayat to have the budget estimate approved on or before March 31 of the current year. Admittedly, the panchayat has failed to pass the budget even after the meeting is convened for the same purpose with a definite agenda of the budget. Therefore, as provided in sec. 116(4), the impugned show-cause notice came to be issued and the opportunity is provided to the petitioner who is the sarpanch of the panchayat to submit an explanation or justification for not having passed the budget within the stipulated period provided by the statute. Therefore, as provided in sec. 116(4) it empowers the State Government to form an opinion with regard to the incompetence of the panchayat to perform the duty or discharge the function entrusted to it under the provisions of the Act. However, before such opinion could be formed, an opportunity is required to be given to give explanation or justification for having not been able to pass the budget. 18. However, before such opinion could be formed, an opportunity is required to be given to give explanation or justification for having not been able to pass the budget. 18. Reliance placed by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya on the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat (supra) and in the case of Shrimati Shantaben Popathai Makwana (supra) provides that it is not a sine qua non that the moment the budget is not passed there is no option for the State Government but to dissolve the panchayat. In the judgment in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat (supra) it has been clearly observed referring to the same provision of sec. 116 r/w sec. 253 that the requirement of sec. 116(3) is approving the budget estimate before March 31 and failure to do so ipso facto does not result in dissolution of the panchayat. It has been clearly observed that if the Panchayat is able to show satisfactorily that there was a genuine reason for not passing the budget within the stipulated time, it is always open for the State Government to consider such ground for passing the ultimate order under Sec. 253 of the Act. 19. Thus, on analysis and interpretation of sec. 116 read with sec. 253, what has been provided is that non-passing of the budget ipso facto would not be a ground for dissolution of the panchayat. Again, as stated above, the statutory provision by way of sec. 116(4) clearly empowers the State Government to issue a show-cause notice for failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 116(3). However, it has been made clear that an opinion has to be formed that the panchayat is incompetent to perform the duties or the functions entrusted to it under the Act, meaning thereby, an opportunity is required to be given for the explanation or justification and thereafter an opinion could be formed after considering the explanation or justification for not having passed the budget within the stipulated period as provided statutorily. Thus, what has been provided is that there may not be any automatic dissolution or super session of the panchayat and in fact it grants the discretion to the government to condone such non-passing of the budget if a genuine ground is made out or explanation offered is genuine. Thus, what has been provided is that there may not be any automatic dissolution or super session of the panchayat and in fact it grants the discretion to the government to condone such non-passing of the budget if a genuine ground is made out or explanation offered is genuine. For example, if the meeting of the panchayat could not be convened for the reasons beyond control like a natural calamity like flood, earthquake or any other situation, then in that case, merely because March 31 has passed as provided in sec. 116(3), it may not automatically get dissolved. Therefore, in order to take care of such a situation, the legislature has provided in sec. 116(4) forming of an opinion which in turn imply consideration of the justification or explanation. 20. Therefore, the submissions made by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya about denial of opportunity or arbitrary exercise of power are misconceived inasmuch as sec. 116(4) clearly provide that "it shall be lawful for the government to form an opinion...." Admittedly, the show-cause notice is issued for that purpose only calling upon for the explanation. Once that explanation is offered, the same could be considered and appropriate decision could be taken. 21. The High Court in a judgment in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat (supra) has analysed and interpreted sec. 116 r/w sec. 253 of the Act. The provisions of sec. 116 lay down the procedure with regard to the budget estimates and the steps that may be taken empowering the government to form an opinion that the panchayat has failed to perform the duties imposed or the functions entrusted under the provisions of the Act. Section 253 of the Act refers to exercise of power after formation of the opinion by the State Government. At that stage, sec. 253 again provides expressly for giving an opportunity of rendering an explanation. The provisions of sec. Section 253 of the Act refers to exercise of power after formation of the opinion by the State Government. At that stage, sec. 253 again provides expressly for giving an opportunity of rendering an explanation. The provisions of sec. 253 provide, "If, in the opinion of the State Government, a panchayat exceeds or abuses its powers or is incompetent to perform or makes persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it or functions entrusted to it under any provision of this Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force, or fails to obey an order made under this Act by the panchayat superior thereto or by the State Government or any officer authorised by it, under this Act or persistently disobeys any of such orders, the State Government may, after consultation with the district panchayat in the case of panchayat subordinate to it and after giving the panchayat an opportunity of rendering an explanation, by order in the Official Gazette-- (i) dissolve such panchayat, or (ii) supersede such panchayat for the period specified in the order..." Thus, a conjoint reading of sec. 116 r/w sec. 253 of the Act clearly provide for an opportunity to the panchayat for rendering an explanation for not having passed the budget in compliance of the statutory provisions under sec. 116(3). 22. It has been observed in a judgment in the case of Thasara Village Panchayat (supra), "It is required to be noted that there is no express provision in Sec.116 to the effect that moment the Panchayat fails to pass budget on or before 31st March of the current year, it shall stand dissolved or superseded. Therefore, so far as Sec. 116 is concerned, it nowhere provides that moment budget is not passed within the stipulated time, it results in the automatic dissolution of a particular panchayat. It is, no doubt, true that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1993, the State Government is empowered to form an opinion about the incompetence of such panchayat to perform its duty in case it is found that the Panchayat failed to pass the budget within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the Government is entitled to form an opinion to the effect that the panchayat has failed to pass budget within the stipulated time, and therefore, it is incompetent to perform its functions. Accordingly, the Government is entitled to form an opinion to the effect that the panchayat has failed to pass budget within the stipulated time, and therefore, it is incompetent to perform its functions. On the basis of forming of such an opinion, naturally, powers are required to be exercised under Sec. 253 of the Act for the purpose of dissolution or supersession of such Panchayat. However, there is nothing in Sec. 116 to suggest that moment a particular Panchayat fails to pass the budget within the stipulated time, it is required to be dissolved straightaway. It only enables the Government to form an opinion that such Panchayat is not competent to perform its function, on the basis of which proceedings can be initiated under Sec. 253 of the Act. In a given case, if a Panchayat is able to show satisfactorily that there was a genuine reason for not passing budget within the stipulated time, it is always open for the State Government to consider such ground for passing the ultimate order under Sec. 253 of the Act. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned AGP, that under the Panchayats Act, 1961, there was no such clause (4), by which the Government was entitled to form an opinion about the incompetence of such Panchayat for not passing budget and that, now, by virtue of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 116, the State Government is entitled to form such opinion, yet, in my view, by reading Sec. 116(3) and (4), it cannot be said that, moment the Panchayat fails to pass a budget, there is no other option left but to dissolve such Panchayat." 23. One more aspect which is required to be considered on the submissions by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya with much emphasis is as to whether the provisions are mandatory or directory. As stated above, the issue is not with regard to whether the provision is mandatory or directory. When sec. 116(4) refers to formation of an opinion and sec. 253 provides for an opportunity for giving an explanation itself suggest that such provisions are directory inasmuch as it provides some scope for consideration of the justification or explanation before forming an opinion and thereafter providing further in exercise of power under sec. 253 for dissolution or super session of the panchayat. 24. 253 provides for an opportunity for giving an explanation itself suggest that such provisions are directory inasmuch as it provides some scope for consideration of the justification or explanation before forming an opinion and thereafter providing further in exercise of power under sec. 253 for dissolution or super session of the panchayat. 24. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat reported in 1991 (2) GLR 811 in the case of Nathalal Manilal Patel & anr. v. A.R. Banerjee, Development Commissioner and the Division Bench has made an observation on the same issue that a provision for approving the budget estimate before 31st March is not mandatory and directory. However, referring to the provisions of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 and the provisions or the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats Financial, Accounts and Budget Rules, 1963, it has been observed, "The provision in Rule 161(b) to approve the budget estimate before March 31 is directory provision requiring no strict compliance, but substantial compliance. If the budget estimate is not approved before March 31 for some valid reason, such estimate can be approved within reasonable time thereafter depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere fact that the budget estimate was not approved before March 31 would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Panchayat was incompetent to perform its functions." In that case, because of some technical reasons it could not be passed and it was passed later on and the observations have been made. 25. The provision in the statute providing for the procedure to be followed for the budget estimate suggests about the broad outline for financial discipline for the purpose of functioning of the local body like the panchayat. The budgetary provisions are made to enable the local body to have its estimates about the resources and financial discipline and also the priority for the expenditure. Therefore, unless it is made, it may not be able to function properly without any financial arrangement or the budget estimate. The budgetary provisions are made to enable the local body to have its estimates about the resources and financial discipline and also the priority for the expenditure. Therefore, unless it is made, it may not be able to function properly without any financial arrangement or the budget estimate. It is in this background the legislature has provided specifically for passing of the budget in the manner provided for a particular period i.e. 31st March of the financial year and it has also taken care that for some reason if it is not passed that by itself may not work to the disadvantage of the panchayat or the local body if there is any justification and therefore the same have been made directory and not mandatory. At the same time, it has been expected about substantial compliance. If there is no compliance without justification, then the exercise of power and notice under sec. 116 empowering the government to form an opinion for further exercise of power under sec. 253 cannot be questioned and that too at such the stage of show-cause notice. 26. In the facts of the case, it is not that the budget has not been moved and passed. After the notice of agenda for passing of the budget and having convened the meeting on the basis of majority voting against passing of the budget it has not been passed, meaning thereby, it is not a question of lapse in moving the budget or convening the meeting for passing the budget but rather it is an issue where having convened the meeting with the agenda for passing of the budget it has not been passed because of lack of majority and in fact the majority voting against the passing of the budget. 27. It is required to be stated that the submission by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya that even if the panchayat has failed to pass the budget in compliance with the statutory provisions of sec. 116 of the Act suggesting breach of duty imposed by the statute or failure to perform an obligation the show-cause notice could not be issued cannot be accepted by any court of law in a legal system governed by rule of law. In fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in a judgment in the case of Anjar Municipality and ors. In fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in a judgment in the case of Anjar Municipality and ors. (supra) referred to by learned advocate Shri Mangukiya himself made the observation, "Section 263 of the Act, however, authorises the State Government to take an appropriate action of dissolution on the grounds mentioned therein. Before taking such action, a Municipality must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A bald assertion by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there should be no dissolution of Municipality notwithstanding misfeasance, non-feasance, breach of duties imposed by a statute or failure to perform statutory obligations cannot be countenanced by a Court of law in any legal system governed by Rule of Law. Such a view, in our judgment, is neither favoured by the Legislature under Sec. 263 of the Act nor by parliament under Art. 243U of the Constitution." However, it has been clearly provided that when the statutory provisions have not been complied with and when the State Government has been empowered by the statutory provision, it would be competent for the State Government to proceed in accordance with law. 28. In the facts of the case, as stated above, sec. 116(4) clearly provide that it shall be lawful for the State Government to form an opinion that the panchayat is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it or the functions entrusted to it under the provisions of this Act when the village panchayat has failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 116(3). In other words, the failure to comply with the statutory requirement as provided in sec. 116with regard to the budget has been provided as a ground for lawful formation of the opinion by the government that the panchayat is incompetent and has failed to perform duties imposed by the statute (Panchayats Act). However, as stated above, care has been taken by the Legislature to provide a reasonable opportunity for any genuine reason or justification which may be considered before proceeding further in exercise of statutory powers under sec. 253 of the Act. Section 116(4) provide for formation of an opinion and thereafter before the powers under sec. 253 are exercised an opportunity of hearing is provided. 29. 253 of the Act. Section 116(4) provide for formation of an opinion and thereafter before the powers under sec. 253 are exercised an opportunity of hearing is provided. 29. Therefore, when it is only a show-cause notice providing an opportunity to the panchayat, the present petition filed by the petitioner as sarpanch of the panchayat for stay of such proceedings cannot be entertained in exercise of discretion under Art. 226. In fact, as rightly submitted, it would be premature to come to any conclusion before the authority takes a decision on consideration of any explanation or justification. If at all there is any genuine explanation or justification it may be considered. As stated, it leaves the scope for giving any genuine explanation for not being able to pass the budget for the reasons beyond control or genuine reason like a natural calamity or any other reason. On the other hand, it obliges the government before exercising the powers for dissolution or suspension to provide an opportunity to give an explanation suggesting an inbuilt mechanism for giving sufficient opportunity to the panchayat before the powers are exercised under sec. 253. 30. It is required to be added, however, that it does not justify any condonation or lapse or casual approach or failure to pass the budget after the same has been considered in the meeting and it could not be passed. Thus, the budget could not be passed for not convening the meeting due to reasons beyond control like a natural calamity or some genuine reason is one thing and the budget having not been passed even after the meeting where the majority is voting against is a different issue altogether. Moreover, a useful reference can be made to the judgment of this High Court reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1092 in the case of Pariya Gram Panchayat v. Development Commissioner referring to the same statutory provisions under the Act interpreting the statutory provision under sec. 116(4) r/w sec. 253. 31. Therefore, the present petition challenging the show-cause notice itself cannot be entertained when the show-cause notice is issued in exercise of the statutory power under sec. 116(4) r/w sec. 253 of the Act. The present petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.