Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 603 (HP)

GRAM PANCHAYAT, TARUAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2020-09-15

ANOOP CHITKARA, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2020
ORDER : 1. Impugned notification dated 26.08.2020 was issued under Section 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") to merge village Barota into Gram Sabha, Taruan. This impugned action of the respondents was objected to by Gram Sabha, Taruan and it passed resolution objecting for the impugned action of merging Barota into Gram Sabha Taruan. The petitioner submits that it had made objections on three occasions and the last objections by resolution was on 15.12.2019. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents without hearing and considering the resolution and objections, may issue election notification and thereafter they would become remedy less. Hence the present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to reconsider the proposal issued vide impugned notification dated 26.08.2020 before finalization of delimitation notification. 2. Learned Advocate General submits to dismiss this petition since it is not maintainable being premature one as there is no final delimitation notification having been issued for the purpose of Section 3(2) of the Act. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short, "the Rules"). When a notification is issued under Section 3(2) of the Act, the furtherance is covered under Chapter-11 of Delimitation of Constituencies of Panchayats under the Rules. As per this, when objections to the proposal are made under Rule 5 to the Deputy Commissioner, it is submitted that in case any notification under Section 3(2) of the Act is issued, then the aggrieved person can approach the Financial Commissioner under Section 148 of the Act or under Rule 143 of the Rules. This notification shall be issued under Rule 11 of the Rules. Once the notification is issued for delimitation, then it is open for the aggrieved party to approach the Competent Court. When Scheme of the Rule with regard to delimitation has been prescribed under the Rules, the delimitation has to be passed as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules and nothing else. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon para 52 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 305 to the effect that sufficient opportunity is to be provided to the people of the area concerned for raising objections. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon para 52 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 305 to the effect that sufficient opportunity is to be provided to the people of the area concerned for raising objections. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that the opportunity will also provide an occasion for people to come forward with suggestions for better and more viable, compact and cohesive regrouping of the villages for efficient administration and economic development. In this background, it is submitted that if regrouping of the villages and determination of the panchayat area is undertaken, the authority will have to give sufficient opportunity to the people. 4. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when objections have been made against the proposal, then it is the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to give reasons for its acceptance and rejection, but, so far objections have not been considered and the petitioner has not been heard. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is on the basis of fact that regrouping notification was issued after the election notification was issued. 6. Here the circumstance is that in view of Section 3(2) of the Act, notification was issued and the competent authority expressed its proposal to merge village Barota into Gram Sabha Taruan. In case any person is aggrieved, then the Scheme under the Rules itself provides various stages for raising objections, but, that stage has not yet reached. In case any order is passed by the State Government under Section 3(2), it is open for the petitioner to approach appropriate Authority having jurisdiction. 7. The petition is not maintainable on the ground that it is not a ripe stage to approach this Court since no final notification has been issued under Section 3(2) of the Act. When the notification is issued and if the petitioner feels aggrieved, it can challenge the same before appropriate Forum/Authority. 8. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.