Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2212 (GUJ)

Mahebubbhai Ahmadbhai Kadivar v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-16

MAUNA M.BHATT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mauna M. Bhatt, J. 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Development Commissioner, dissolving the Panchayat on the ground that for the year 2022- 23 the Panchayat was not able to pass the budget before 31st March 2022 and therefore, unable to discharge its functions. 2. Brief facts, as referred in the petition, are as under: 2.1 The election of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat took place on 19.12.2021 and result was declared on 21.12.2021. Thereafter, the election of Sarpanch took place through voting and accordingly, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. The said Panchayat consisted of 11 members including Sarpanch and the petitioner as Sarpanch assumed charge on 19.01.2022. 2.2 It is case of the petitioner that in Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat, out of 11 elected members, 5 members belong to Indian National Congress and 6 members belong to Bhartiya Janta Party. Since the members of Bhartiya Janta Party could not get elected as Sarpanch, they started creating problems in the administration of the Panchayat. 2.3 It is case of the petitioner that previously elected body of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat had on 18.11.2021, approved the budget of the year 2022-23 and forwarded the same to Taluka Panchayat for approval as provided under section 116(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short “the Act-1993”). As per section 116(2) of the Act-1993, the Taluka Panchayat has to scrutinize the budget estimates and return to the Panchayat within two months of its receipt with such observations and recommendations as it may make in respect of the budget estimate. Accordingly, the Taluka Panchayat after scrutiny of budget returned it to Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 24.01.2022. 2.4 As provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the Panchayat has to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year with such modifications as it may think fit having regard to the observations and recommendations made by the Taluka Panchayat under subsection (2) of the Section 116 of the Act. Since the same could not be done, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed by Development Commissioner dissolving the Panchayat. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 4. Since the same could not be done, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed by Development Commissioner dissolving the Panchayat. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.3 & 4. 4. Learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao for the petitioner submitted that as stated in the facts, elected body of Gram Panchayat had approved the budget of the year 2022-23 on 18.11.2021 and forwarded the same to the Taluka Panchayat for approval as provided under section 116(1) of the Act. As per Section 116(2) of the Act, the budget is required to be scrutinized by Taluka Panchayat and to return the same to the Gram Panchayat with observations and recommendations, which was done in this case on 24.01.2022. As provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the budget is required to be approved on or before 31.03.2022, however it could not be done for which, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed and the same is erroneous because as provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the Panchayat is to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year as recommended by Taluka Panchayat under sub-section (2) of Section 116 the Act. 5. Upon receipt of the budget with its recommendations by Taluka Panchayat, the petitioner herein in compliance of provisions of section 116(2) of the Act, convened meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 23.03.2022 for which, agenda was circulated on 16.03.2022. The agenda specifically refers to approval of budget for the year 2022-23. Accordingly, meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat was convened on 23.03.2022 under the Chairmanship of the petitioner wherein, all 11 members remained present. In the said meeting, 5 members of Panchayat voted in favour of the budget, which was recommended by Taluka Panchayat and 6 members voted against the proposed recommended budget. Therefore, the budget could not get approved in the meeting dated 23.03.2022. 6. Once again, the petitioner called for special meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 31.03.2022 with the agenda for approval of budget for the year 2022-23. For the meeting to be held on 31.03.2022, agenda was circulated well in advance on 26.03.2022. In the meeting dated 31.03.2022, which was convened under the chairmanship of the petitioner, all 11 members remained present. Once again, the petitioner called for special meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 31.03.2022 with the agenda for approval of budget for the year 2022-23. For the meeting to be held on 31.03.2022, agenda was circulated well in advance on 26.03.2022. In the meeting dated 31.03.2022, which was convened under the chairmanship of the petitioner, all 11 members remained present. Majority could not be ascertained with regard to passing of the said budget because out of 11 members, 6 members cast their votes against the budget. The petitioner also sent notice to 6 members of the opposition group under section 57 of the Act on 28.03.2022. 7. Since the budget could not get approved, Talati-cum- Mantri on 31.03.2022 wrote letter to Taluka Development Officer informing about convening of meeting of Panchayat under the chairmanship of the petitioner on 23.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 seeking approval of budget and the same could not be approved on account of resolutions passed. 8. Since the budget was not approved on or before 31.03.2022, the petitioner wrote letter to Taluka Development Officer to approve monthly expenditure for administrative purposes. Thereafter, Development Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as well as elected members on 04.05.2022 calling upon them to show cause as to why the Gram Panchayat should not be dissolved under section 253 of the Act. Time of 15 days was granted from the date of receipt of the notice. 9. Learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 04.05.2022, Panchayat called meeting on 23.05.2022 and passed resolution and submitted its explanation to the Development Commissioner. The resolution dated 23.05.2022 was thereafter forwarded to Taluka Development Officer. Thereafter, Gram Sabha was called on 20.06.2022 and in the meeting of Gram Sabha, budget was unanimously approved for the year 2022-23 and therefore, majority of members having not accepted the resolution may have to be ignored. Learned advocate submitted that since the Gram Sabha had approved the budget in its meeting on 20.06.2022, the said resolution of Gram Sabha was forwarded to Development Commissioner on 21.06.2022. 10. Learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao submitted that thereafter District Development Officer sent letter dated 22.06.2022 intimating the petitioner that since the budget is not approved on or before 31st March as provided under section 116 of the Act, proposal was made by District Development Officer to dissolve the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. 10. Learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao submitted that thereafter District Development Officer sent letter dated 22.06.2022 intimating the petitioner that since the budget is not approved on or before 31st March as provided under section 116 of the Act, proposal was made by District Development Officer to dissolve the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. In response thereto, the petitioner and members of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat were called to remain present for hearing on 28.06.2022 at 11:30 am in the office of Development Commissioner. The petitioner appeared on 28.06.2022 personally before Development Commissioner and made oral as well as written submissions. Learned advocate submitted that ignoring the oral and written submissions, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed dissolving the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on the ground that Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat was not able to pass budget on or before 31st March and therefore, it is unable to discharge its functions. Development Commissioner by separate order dated 13.07.2022 appointed Shri D.S.Shrimali, Extension Officer Panchayat-2, Taluka Panchayat, Vankaner as Administrator of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. 11. Learned advocate submitted that order dated 13.07.2022 was not served to the petitioner or any of the member of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat and straightway the Administrator took charge on 15.07.2022. Learned advocate submitted that order dated 13.07.2022 and appointment of Administrator is bad in law because Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate that budget is for development of entire village and from the resolution of Gram Sabha, it is evident that majority members have made their suggestions and recommendations to the budget and voted for the same and therefore, budget approved by Gram Sabha shall have to be taken as budget passed on or before 31st March of the year concerned. 12. Further, Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the dissenting members have not assigned any reasons for not approving the budget and since non-approval was without any reason, the same may be ignored. 13. Further, Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 116(4) of the Act, which are directory and not mandatory. Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate that when budget is approved after 31st March, the Development Commissioner has to take independent decision in relation to the merits of the case, which has not been done in the present case. 14. Further, efforts made by the petitioner to approve the budget were ignored. Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate that when budget is approved after 31st March, the Development Commissioner has to take independent decision in relation to the merits of the case, which has not been done in the present case. 14. Further, efforts made by the petitioner to approve the budget were ignored. Even action taken by the petitioner as Sarpanch of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat for disqualification of objecting members under Section 57 of the Act to remove them as members has also been ignored. 15. Most importantly, as held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Manilal and another v. A.R.Banerji & another reported in 1991(2) GLR 801, while interpreting Sections 124 and 126 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, it is held that provision to approve budget estimate before 31st March is directory and not mandatory. Further, since the approval of budget estimate before 31st March being directory, it does not require its strict compliance and therefore, if budget is not approved in time, such budget estimate can be approved within reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, non-approval of budget estimate would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Panchayat is incompetent to perform its functions and therefore, deserves to be dissolved. 16. Learned advocate further submitted that Rule 22 of The Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules,1997 provides for procedure for resolution. In this case, procedure has been followed to pass the resolution and therefore, once procedure is followed, non-passing of budget cannot be a ground for dissolution of Gram Panchayat. 17. Learned advocate further submitted that Rule 28 of The Gujarat Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1997, provides for amendment to resolution wherein sub-rule (3) of Rule 28 provides that no amendment shall be moved, which has merely the effect of negative vote. Rule 28(4) thereof provides that amendment in the alternative shall not be moved. Therefore, non-passing of resolution would not be so significant to dissolve the Gram Panchayat. 18. Learned advocate submitted that Development Commissioner has failed to appreciate that approval of budget and passing thereof is to protect the interest of entire village. Since in the Gram Sabha every member of the village agreed to approve the budget, the same is to be treated as approved budget and non-approval by members of the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat may not be taken as adverse. 19. Since in the Gram Sabha every member of the village agreed to approve the budget, the same is to be treated as approved budget and non-approval by members of the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat may not be taken as adverse. 19. Learned advocate further submitted that as per decision of this Court in the case of Shivangiben Chetankumar Patel V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2019(2) GLR 685, no Confidence Motion cannot be moved within one year from resumption of office against elected Sarpanch or President of the Taluka Panchayat and therefore, Panchayat cannot be dissolved by show cause notice under section 253 of the Act. 20. Learned Advocate relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rakeshkumar Somabhai Rathod V/s. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006)1 GLR 183 and submitted that if a budget estimate is passed even after 31st March, no action under section 253 of the Act is required to be taken. 21. Learned advocate also relied upon the decision in the case of Thasra Village Panchayat V/s. P.D.Vaghela and others reported in 2002(3) GLH 692 and submitted that non-passing of resolution could not dissolve the Panchayat under section 253 of the Act. He thus submitted that the decision of Development Commissioner dated 13.07.2022 dissolving Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat under section 253 of the Act being erroneous, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 22. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submitted that respondent No.2- Development Commissioner passed an order dated 13.07.2022, deeming it appropriate to dissolve the Gram Panchayat on account of failure to comply with the provisions of Section 116 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat being elected on 21.12.2021 and the petitioner taking charge on 19.01.2022 is not in dispute. Since the budget was to be passed on or before 31.03.2022, attempts were made to pass the budget on or before 31.03.2022 and the petitioner failed in both the attempts to pass the budget due to lack of majority. Since the budget of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat could not be passed as provided under section 116 of the Act for the year 2022-23, Talati-cum-Mantri addressed communication to Taluka Development Officer informing and admitting failure on the part of Panchayat to pass the budget for the year 2022-23. Since the budget of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat could not be passed as provided under section 116 of the Act for the year 2022-23, Talati-cum-Mantri addressed communication to Taluka Development Officer informing and admitting failure on the part of Panchayat to pass the budget for the year 2022-23. Accordingly, respondent No.2 i.e. Development Commissioner issued show cause notice dated 04.05.2022 to Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. In response to the show cause notice dated 04.05.2022, the petitioner replied and the order dated 13.07.2022 was passed after taking into consideration oral as well as written submissions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that order dated 13.07.2022 is just and proper in view of the following submissions: (a) The impugned order is passed after hearing all the parties and it does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or violative of principles of natural justice. (b) The Gram Panchayat has failed to perform its duties and have become incompetent to perform because it had not passed the budget on or before 31.03.2022 as envisaged under section 116 of the Act. (c) The Development Commissioner is only required to consider passing of the budget as on 31.03.2022. In this case it is pertinent to note that the Panchayat had failed to pass the budget till passing of the impugned order. Therefore, while passing the order under section of 253, the authority has to form an opinion in consultation with the District Panchayat. (d) In this case the Development Commissioner had formed an opinion that the Gram Panchayat had become incompetent to perform its duties and therefore it deemed it appropriate to dissolve the Gram Panchayat exercising powers under 253 of the Act. 23. In support of his submissions, Learned AGP relied upon following decisions: (i) Pariya Gram Panchayat V/s. Development Commissioner reported in (2005)2 GLR 1092 (ii) Rakeshkumar Somabhai Rathod V/s. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006)1 GLR 183 (iii) Chavda Sarojben Bharatbhai V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2019(2) GLR 1063 (iv) Vijayaben Ganeshbhai Borsaniya & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.11150 of 2006 and allied matters. 24. V/s. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.11150 of 2006 and allied matters. 24. On the aspect of the decisions relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case as they are in relation to supersession of Gram Panchayat and not in relation to dissolution of the Gram Panchayat under section 253 of the Act. 25. Lastly, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta submitted that even conduct of the petitioner is also required to be considered that the petition was filed in the year 2022 challenging the order dated 13.07.2022. Thereafter, no attempts were made to proceed with the matter and on the verge of initiation of election, the present petition was requested for priority and therefore, no interference is required at this stage. 26. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta further submitted that language of section 253 is clear. As provided under section 253, the Development Commissioner is only required to form an opinion that Panchayat is incompetent to function. 27. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and by placing reliance on the reply filed by District Development Officer, submitted that admittedly the petitioner could not get the budget approved as provided under section 116 of the Act and therefore, action taken under section 253 is appropriate. Prior to decision dated 13.07.2022, the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act has been followed and there is no breach of principles of natural justice. Learned advocate submitted that since language of section 253 read with section 116 of the Act being clear, this petition deserves rejection. 28. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon. Facts referred hereinabove are not in dispute. Further, section 116(3) of the Act, provides that Gram Panchayat shall approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of current year with such modifications as it may think fit, having regard to the observations and recommendations made by Taluka Panchayat under sub-section (2) of Section 116 of the Act. Facts referred hereinabove are not in dispute. Further, section 116(3) of the Act, provides that Gram Panchayat shall approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of current year with such modifications as it may think fit, having regard to the observations and recommendations made by Taluka Panchayat under sub-section (2) of Section 116 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 116 refers that if any village Panchayat has failed to comply with provisions of the Section 116(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. 29. Section 253 of the Act provides for dissolution or suspension of the Panchayat, if in the opinion of State Government, the Panchayat is incompetent to perform or makes persistent defaults in performance of the duties imposed on it. The said opinion is to be taken after consultation with the District Panchayat and in this case, after consultation with the District Panchayat, the Development Commissioner has formed an opinion that despite several efforts made for approval of the budget, the petitioner failed in doing so and therefore, Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat is incompetent to perform its duties. This aspect has been evident from the communication dated 16.06.2022 by District Development Officer to Development Commissioner. From the communication dated 16.06.2022, it is evident that the District Development Officer has opined that since Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat has failed in approving the budget for 2022-23 and failed in performing its duties and therefore, in his opinion, it is appropriate to dissolve the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2022 was passed. Further, in the decision dated 13.07.2006 in Special Civil Application No.11150 of 2006, this Court has held as under: “22. Therefore, it appears that the following proposition can be deduced keeping in view the statutory provisions and the aforesaid case law. 1) If the Budget is not passed before 31st March by the Panchayat, it is lawful for the State Government to form an opinion that the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties. However, such provisions are only enabling provision leaving discretion to the State Government to form an opinion and to pass the order of dissolution or not. 1) If the Budget is not passed before 31st March by the Panchayat, it is lawful for the State Government to form an opinion that the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties. However, such provisions are only enabling provision leaving discretion to the State Government to form an opinion and to pass the order of dissolution or not. 2) The requirement of passing the budget before 31st March of every year is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, if the budget is not passed before 31st March, the initiation of the action by the State Government/Development Commissioner under Section 253 of the Act is not unwarranted. 3) After the action is initiated under Section 253 of the Act by the Authority, it will be for the concerned Panchayat to satisfy that there were circumstances beyond control, which resulted into nonpassing of the budget prior to 31st March, so as to enable the Development Commissioner to exercise the discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case prior to 31st March. After the action is initiated, if the budget is passed before hearing takes place before the authority, for exercise of powers under Section 253 of the Act, it would be one of the strong circumstances, which may be required to be considered by the authority to satisfy itself that the Panchayat has not become incompetent to perform the duty imposed on it as the budget is passed. 4) In the event, the budget is not passed even before the hearing takes place for exercise of the power under Section 253 of the Act by the Authority, it may be required for the authority to examine the conduct of the elected body of the Panchayat after the initiation of the action and at that stage, one of the important aspects, which may be required to be examined is also be that whether any attempt is made on the part of the Panchayat through its elected representative to pass the budget and thereby to show their competence to perform the duties imposed on the Panchayat under the Act. Thereafter, if the authority finds that there is no majority amongst the elected representative of the Panchayat for passing of the budget, it would be justified in passing the order for dissolution of the Panchayat and at that stage, it may also examine the conduct on the part of the elected representative in performance of their duties for discharging the statutory obligation of the Panchayat for passing of the budget before 31st March. In a given case, if the authority finds on proper material that the conduct on the part of the elected representative is leading to a Panchayat making incompetent to perform the duty, thereby creating situation of burden to the voters/citizens for the fresh election, further, action in accordance with law may also be separately taken for misconduct/misuse of power while holding the office as the member/office bearer of a Panchayat.” 30. Further, in the case of Rakeshkumar Somabhai Rathod (supra) reported in (2006)1 GLR 183 , wherein it is held as under: “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. 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.” 31. 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.” 31. Further, in one more decision dated 14.12.2004 relied upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader in the case of Pariya Gram Panchayat (supra), this Court on the aspect to pass budget as directory and not mandatory, held as under: “8. Further the decision rendered in the case of Nathalal Manilal Patel & Anr. v. A.R. Banerjee, Development Commissioner (supra), will not apply on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the said case, the budget was passed in the month of May of the relevant year and, therefore, the Court had held that the provisions are directory and not mandatory, whereas in the present case, the budget was passed after issuance of notice. Thus, the said decision will not apply to the facts of the present case.” 32. Further, one more decision dated 28.09.2004 passed by this Court in the case of Manishbhai Vinodbhai Patel V/s. The State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.10044 of 2004, it is held as under : “6. If the aforesaid observations are considered, at the most, it can be said that merely because the budget is not passed within stipulated time limit, should not be a ground for dissolution, but it would enable the Govt to form an opinion as to whether the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its functions and while forming the opinion the Govt has to take into consideration as to whether there was any genuine reason for not passing the budget within stipulated time limit or there were other grounds which could be considered as valid grounds for the purpose of not passing the budget within stipulated time limit. If the matter is considered accordingly, then there is no explanation put forward on record as to why the budget could not be passed on 24.3.04 and on 31.3.04 and the only ground which is sought to be canvassed is that certain disgruntled members did not support the budget. If the matter is considered accordingly, then there is no explanation put forward on record as to why the budget could not be passed on 24.3.04 and on 31.3.04 and the only ground which is sought to be canvassed is that certain disgruntled members did not support the budget. Even otherwise also when the budget was prepared, it was not passed by the majority, such ground cannot be said to be a valid ground in the eye of law because in a democratic set up of a Gram Panchayat the members of Gram Panchayat have right to independently examine each issue at the meeting including the budget and to express the view. If the majority of the members present at the meeting did not support the budget, the consequences apparently would be that the group of the petitioner has lost the majority from amongst the members of the Gram Panchayat. Such an action is repeated when the second time it was presented on 31.3.04 and also not passed by majority. Therefore, at both the meetings, the budget could not be passed for want of majority and the majority opposed the budget. If, in a democratic set up, the budget is not passed, may be on the ground of not holding a meeting within the stipulated time limit, or for any other valid reason known to law, may stand on different footing. If the budget is not passed on account of the majority of the members opposing the budget, it can be said to be a sufficient ground even to form the opinion that the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties, the reason being that even if the budget is passed, any decision for spending any amount for development work or for incurring any expenses would not be approved at the meeting and the same would consequently result into not only creating a stalmate in the functioning of the Panchayat but may also result into a situation that the expenses are not duly approved by the general body of the Gram Panchayat. Further, question may also arise for recovering the amount, if expended or incurred without there being any proper authority or resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Further, question may also arise for recovering the amount, if expended or incurred without there being any proper authority or resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, if the budget is not passed on account of having lost the majority of the group of the petitioner who is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, it cannot be said that the Development Commissioner was wrong or the power exercised by the Development Commissioner is arbitrary or unreasonable in forming the opinion that the Panchayat has become incompetent to perform its duties and deserves to be dissolved.” Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 33. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner that passing of budget under section 116(4) of the Act is declaratory and not mandatory, is not acceptable, in view of the decisions relied upon hereinabove and more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner herein as Sarpanch of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat has made attempts to get the budget approved, however he failed in getting it approved for lack of majority. Further, not a single plausible reason has been provided by petitioner as to why the budget could not get approved. Admittedly, twice the budget was not approved and therefore, the petitioner failed in performing his duties which, lead to dissolution of Panchayat by an order dated 16.06.2002. Further, here is not a case where the petitioner made efforts after 31.12.2022, and the budget was immediately after 31.12.2022 or before order dated 13.07.2022. 34. Moreover, there is an opinion which has been formed by District Development Officer, which has been referred in the order dated 13.07.2022. The District Development Officer has formed an opinion that on account of non-passing of budget, Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat failed in performing its duties and therefore, the same is required to be dissolved. 35. In view of the decision referred hereinabove and in view of the clear language of Section 253 of the Act, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is called for and therefore, the present petition is rejected. 36. In view of the above, there being no merit in the petition, the same is rejected. Civil Application No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.