JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed before the Court questioning the legal sanction behind formation of "Peoples Council". The High Court noticed that some enterprising police officials thought of having a "Peoples Council" for making society a better place to live in, in an orderly manner. The objection to formation of such "Peoples Council" was essentially on the basis that some of the activities which it was supposed to undertake related to exercise of judicial powers, and as such are not sanctioned in law. The High Court referred to various aspects, the objectives for which the Peoples Councils were to be formed, and legal hurdles in their functioning.

3. Though the High Court found that some of the objectives were covered by normal police functions, the rest were unrelated to the functioning of the police and, in fact, came within the domain of various other departments of d the Government.

4. Particular reference was made to the scope of the Peoples Council in deciding whether a case for registering a case for commission of an offence is made out or not. This the High Court felt was a part of the judicial adjudicatory mechanism and certainly not the function of the police or, in any event, the Peoples Council.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the purpose for which the Peoples Council was to be formed was intended to remove many evils in society and this was just a beginning in an effort to rectify many social evils and ills. Keeping in view the objectives of the Peoples Councils the matter should not have been dealt with in the manner done by the High Court, and when social objectives are to be achieved, a hypertechnical approach should not have been adopted.

6. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, who was appointed as amicus curiae with reference to the objectives, pointed out that though the objectives may be laudable in certain perspectives, yet keeping in view the possibility of misuse described in detail by the High Court, the objectives could not have been achieved and may not have been achieved, given the wide powers which were sought to be conferred on the Peoples Council.

7. The objectives which the Peoples Council wanted to pursue are as follows:

"(1) To check flow of attack in the village.

(2) To check social vices like gambling, prostitution, bhanamathi. harassment, etc.

(3) To stop the activities of antisocial elements and check their visits to the village.

(4) To form village defence squads for protection against thieves and antisocial elements.

(5) To spread adult literacy - to send all the children below 10 years to schools.

(6) To persuade parents to undergo family planning.

(7) Promote sports activities.

(8) Tree plantation.

(9) Every Peoples Council must create one asset through shramadan. SI should help them through his good offices.

(10) To hold panchayats for land disputes, family disputes, petty cases and other civil disputes. All such panchayat reports should be informed to SI. All such disputes should be settled through the consent of both the parties. Nobody should be compelled to abide by the decision of the Peoples Council.

(11) To monitor the functioning of government offices, welfare and developmental measures including fair-price shops.

(12) To maintain cleanliness in the village, help sick persons and other health problems.

(13) Any other social welfare measures.

(14) Prepare a report about the problems of the village and send it to SI every month."

8. The constitution of the Peoples Council, eligibility for members and disqualifications have also been laid down.

9. Though some of the objectives appear to be laudable, yet they cannot be permitted to be achieved by crossing the limits prescribed by law. There are some definite and defined areas earmarked for the functionaries of the State. Merely because the objectives in the u