Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 29 (MAN)

N. Premjit Singh v. State of Manipur

2017-11-09

KH.NOBIN SINGH, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; heard also Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel; and Mr. H. Debendra, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking amendment of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act 1994 to provide for a 3-tier system of Panchayati Raj Institutions namely, Gram Panchayat at the Village level, Block Panchayat at the intermediate Level and Zila Parishad at the District Level in place of the existing 2-tier system of Gram Panchayats at the Village Level and Zila Parishad at the District Level in the State of Manipur. In other words, the petitioners are seeking for introduction of the Block Panchayat/Gram Samiti at the intermediate level as provided in other parts of the country on the ground that as Manipur has total population of more than 20 lakhs, the State is under obligation to provide these Panchayat institutions at 3(three) levels. 3. The institution of Panchayati Raj had been in vogue in India since time immemorial and now much importance has been given to the Panchayati system raising it to the Constitutional status by incorporating these institutions in part IX of the Constitution. Article 40 of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall take steps 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. Under the Constitution, matters relating to Local Government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village administration have been included under Item No. 5 in the State List (List-II), thus empowering the State Government to make necessary laws relating to local self-government or village administration. 4. Manipur Panchayati Raj Institutes have been in existence even since the time when Manipur was a Union Territory with the adoption and implementation of the UP Panchayati Raj Act, 1947. Subsequently, after Manipur was granted Statehood, the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975 was enacted and implemented which has now been replaced by the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which provides for 2-tier system of Panchayati Raj Institutions, that is at the Gram Panchayat at the Village Level and Zila Parishad at the District Level. 5. Subsequently, after Manipur was granted Statehood, the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975 was enacted and implemented which has now been replaced by the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which provides for 2-tier system of Panchayati Raj Institutions, that is at the Gram Panchayat at the Village Level and Zila Parishad at the District Level. 5. It may be noted that before the enactment of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Constitution of India was amended by introducing Part IX by Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, which specifically deals with the Panchayat; and Part IX-A by the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 which specifically deals with the Municipalities. Thus, by introducing Part IX and Part IX-A, the local self-government institutions of Panchayats and Municipalities have been given constitutional status and importance and accordingly, the relevant laws as applicable in the State ought to conform to the Constitutional provisions. 6. Under Part IX of the Constitution which deals with the Panchayats, it has been provided under Article 243-B(1) that there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Thus, in terms of the provisions of Article 243-B (1), the Panchayati Raj Institutions are to be constituted at the 3(three) levels that is, village, intermediate, and district level. That is the mandate of the Constitution. However, an exception has been carved out under clause (2) of Article 243-B which provides that notwithstanding anything in clause (1), Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs. Because of this provision, in respect of State which has a population less than twenty lakhs, it is not mandatory to have the Panchayats at the intermediate stage and it would suffice if the Panchayats are constituted at the village and district level only. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that the total population of Manipur today exceeds twenty lakhs and as such, the exemption provided under clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution for not constituting Panchayat at the intermediate level will not be applicable as this exemption is given to a State which has a population of less than twenty lakhs. It has been stated by the petitioners that as per the Census conducted in 2001, it has been reported that the total population of Manipur was 21,66,788; and as per the latest Census conducted in the year 2011, Manipur has now population of more than twenty seven lakhs. Accordingly, after population of Manipur has crossed twenty lakhs, the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which provides for only 2-tier of Panchayati Raj system has become obsolete and therefore, there is a need for amendment of the Act by introducing the 3rd middle level Panchayat institution of Panchayat Samiti. 8. This claim of the petitioners seeking amendment of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, however, has been contested by the State Government on the ground that the total population of Manipur excluding 5 hill districts, namely, Ukhrul, Chandel, Churachandpur, Senapati and Tamenglong Districts where District Councils are constituted, is less than twenty lakhs. It has been stated that Article 243-M specifically provides that nothing in this Part IX shall apply to certain areas. Article 243-M(2) provides that nothing in this Part shall apply to the Hill areas in the State of Manipur for which District Councils exists under any law for the time being in force. According to the State respondents, in the Hill areas of the State of Manipur, Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Councils Act, 1971 is applicable and accordingly, the provisions of this Part IX of the Constitution relating to panchayats are not applicable. According to the State respondents, Panchayat area of the State of Manipur as per definition clause in Article 243 (e) means the territorial area of a Panchayat in the State of Manipur. Thus, Panchayat areas in Manipur would refer to the areas of the Valley Districts only, namely, Imphal East, Imphal West, Thoubal, and Bishnupur Districts and cannot include the Hill Districts. It has been stated as per 2011 Census Report, the total population of the State of Manipur is more than 27,21,756 out of which the total population of the four Valley districts where Panchayati Raj Institutions are constituted consist of only 16,28,204. It has been stated as per 2011 Census Report, the total population of the State of Manipur is more than 27,21,756 out of which the total population of the four Valley districts where Panchayati Raj Institutions are constituted consist of only 16,28,204. In other words, the total population of the four Valley districts of the State where Panchayati Raj Institutions are in existence is less than twenty lakhs, as the Hill Areas, where Autonomous District Councils Act is applicable have to be excluded as the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution for constitution of Panchayats cannot be applied in the Hill areas. Accordingly, it has been contended by the State respondents that the provisions of the clause (2) of the Article 243-B will be attracted and it is not mandatory on the part of the State Government to constitute Panchayats at the intermediate level as the population in the Panchayat areas of Manipur is less than twenty lakhs. Accordingly, it has been stated that Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 does not suffer from any Constitutional defect and as hence, the petition would be liable to be dismissed. 9. Article 243 B of the Constitution reads as follows:- “(1) There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.” From the above, it is clear that there has to be 3-tier of Panchayati Raj Institutions at the village, intermediate and district level in every State in terms of clause (1) of Article 243-B of the Constitution. However, for such States which has population of less than twenty lakhs, the Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted as it is not mandatory to constitute Panchayat at the intermediate level where the State is having population of less than twenty lakhs. 10. As per the 2011 Census Report, the total population of Manipur is 27,21,756. Since total population of Manipur is more than twenty lakhs as per the 2011 Census report which is not in dispute, as per requirement of Article 243-B (1) in the State of Manipur also, all the 3-tier of Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels are to be constituted, if clause (2) is not applicable. Since total population of Manipur is more than twenty lakhs as per the 2011 Census report which is not in dispute, as per requirement of Article 243-B (1) in the State of Manipur also, all the 3-tier of Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels are to be constituted, if clause (2) is not applicable. The issue is whether in the State of Manipur, the provisions of the exemption clause as provided under clause(2) of Article 243-B will be applicable or not. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that since the total number of population of Manipur is more than twenty lakhs, Panchayats at all the 3 (three) levels have to be constituted. On the other hand, the stand of the State respondents is that Panchayati Raj Institutions are to be constituted only in the Valley areas as provided under Part IX of the Constitution; as Part IX will not be applicable in the Hill areas in terms of Article 243-M. It has been accordingly, contended that since the total population of the area where Panchayats can be constituted is less than twenty lakhs, provisions of Article 243-B (2) will be attracted and it is not obligatory on the part of the State Government to amend the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, to constitute the Panchayat at the intermediate level. It has been accordingly submitted that amendment of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as sought for by the petitioners is not called for. 12. This Court, accordingly, has to examine the scope of clause (2) of Article 243-B on which the entire issue hinges. On plain reading of clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution, it is clear that where the population of a State does not exceed twenty lakhs, it is not mandatory on the part of the authorities to constitute the Panchayats at the intermediate level. The question which arises is whether in the context of Manipur, it can be said that the population of the State of Manipur does not exceed twenty lakhs for the purpose of Part IX of the Constitution. The question which arises is whether in the context of Manipur, it can be said that the population of the State of Manipur does not exceed twenty lakhs for the purpose of Part IX of the Constitution. If the interpretation of the State Government is to be accepted that the population of areas of Hill districts where institution of Panchayats cannot be constituted in terms of Article 243-M cannot be counted, the population in the areas where Panchayati Raj Institutions are to be constituted falls less than twenty lakhs. In that event, by virtue of clause (2) to Article 243-M, the State of Manipur need not constitute the intermediate level Panchayats. This interpretation adopted by the State Government, however, would require reading additional words of “in rural areas” in the expression “in a State having a population not exceeding 20 lakhs.” found in the existing provision of the Constitution under Article 243-B. The Constitution has not used the expression “in a State having a population not exceeding 20 lakhs in rural areas.” 13. Admittedly, Panchayati Raj Institutions are applicable only in the rural areas as evident from the definition clause (d) of Article 243 which defines Panchayat to mean an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243-B for the rural areas. Provision of Part IX which deals with Panchayats are not applicable in the urban areas. For the urban areas special provisions have been made under Part IX-A for constitution of Municipalities. Under Article 243-Q of Part IX-A of the Constitution, it has been provided that there shall be constituted in every State (a) Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area; (b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (c) Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance to the provisions of this Part. 14. Therefore, as far as urban areas and rural areas which are in a transition to an urban area are concerned, the Constitution has made special provisions for constitution of municipalities where Panchayats are not to be constituted. 14. Therefore, as far as urban areas and rural areas which are in a transition to an urban area are concerned, the Constitution has made special provisions for constitution of municipalities where Panchayats are not to be constituted. In other words, from the Constitutional scheme as provided under Part IX and Part IX-A, it is clearly evident that provisions of Part IX which deals with the Panchayats will be applicable only in the Rural areas and not in urban areas as the provisions of Part IX-A which specifically deals with the municipalities will be applicable in the urban areas and those rural areas which are in transition to urban areas. 15. Accordingly, while interpreting clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution which provides for constitution of Panchayats, the expression 'the State having a population not exceeding 20 lakhs' cannot be qualified by confining it to the rural areas though Panchayats are applicable only in the rural areas. Otherwise, the Parliament would have included the words or expression 'in the rural areas' in clause (2) of Article 243-B as Panchayats are to be constituted only in rural areas. Even though Panchayats are to be constituted only in the rural areas as provided under Part IX of the Constitution, the Parliament has chosen not to use the expression/words “rural areas” in Clause (2) of Article 243-B, thus qualifying and explaining the word 'State' under clause (2) of Article 243-B. What the Parliament has used is the expression, 'in a State having a population not exceeding 20 lakhs'. The Parliament has not used the expression in “a State having population not exceeding 20 lakhs in 'rural areas'.” It may be noted that, “By any known canon of construction, words of width and amplitude ought not generally to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute restraints and conditions which the legislature itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose” [See Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 ] 16. Therefore, if the Parliament after being fully aware that the Panchayati Institutions cannot be applicable in urban areas and it can be applied only in rural areas, and yet did not confine the population as mentioned in clause (2) of Article 243-B to 'rural areas' by making any such specific provisions, this Court is of the view that we cannot qualify or restrict the population of a State referred to under clause (2) of Article 243-B to that of the 'rural areas' of a State only without the hill areas as has been sought to be done by the State Government. We are of the view that the expression used in clause (2) of Article 243-B that a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs will have reference to the population of the entire State and not confined only to rural areas or by excluding hill areas, in absence of any such specific provision in the Constitution. If we adopt this method of literal interpretation of the aforesaid provision of clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution, there is no reason why the population of the Hill areas in the State of Manipur where Panchayati Raj Institutions cannot be constituted and where District Councils are already in existence, should be ignored while counting the population as referred to under Clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution. 17. We, therefore, hold that under clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution which provides that a State having population not exceeding twenty lakhs may not constitute Panchayat at the intermediate level, the population referred to is the entire population of the State and not confined only to the rural areas where only the Panchayati Raj Institutions are in existence. Therefore, we cannot accept the interpretation proposed by the State Government by which the population of the hill areas where the District Councils are in existence are not to be counted for the purpose of application of clause (2) of Article 243-B. We, accordingly, hold that population referred to in clause (2) of Article 243-B means the entire population of the State irrespective of whether the Panchayati Institutions as provided under Part IX are applicable or not or any other institutions like Municipalities or District Councils are also operating, as the Constitution has not specifically mentioned to that effect. 18. 18. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the State Government is under obligation to provide for constitution of Panchayats at the intermediate level also in addition to the existing Gram Panchayat at the Village level and Zila Parishad at the District Level as already provided under Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and accordingly, take steps for amendment of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, for constitution of the Panchayats at intermediate level also in accordance with the mandate of Article 243-B (1) as we hold at the earliest that the provisions of clause (2) of Article 243-B of the Constitution will not be applicable in the State of Manipur, as Manipur has population of more than twenty lakhs. 19. For the reasons discussed above and above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.