HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD
GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.
K. Narasimha, Sarpanch - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. and another - Respondents
W.P. No. 63 of 1967
Decided on 19-9-1968
GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT - SECTION 52 - DISSOLUTION OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - SARPANCH NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN WRIT PETITION - NO LOCUS STANDI - ORDER OF DISSOLUTION NOT VOID BUT VOIDABLE - GRAM PANCHAYAT NOT CHOOSING TO COMPLAIN - SARPANCH CANNOT VOICE COMPLAINT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - ACTS AND OMISSIONS ALLEGED IN CHARGE MEMO NOT OCCURRED DURING TIME WHEN PETITIONER WAS SARPANCH - IRRELEVANT - CHARGE SUBSTANTIALLY DIRECTED AGAINST CORPORATE BODY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - ORDER OF DISSOLUTION UNDER SECTION 52 NOT BAD - ACTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE - SECTION 52 NOT APPLICABLE - DISTINGUISHED - COLLECTOR COULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION UNDER SECTION 144 AGAINST SARPANCH - NOT PRECLUDE COLLECTOR FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 52.
Fact of the Case:
The Gram Panchayat was dissolved by the District Collector for exceeding and abusing its powers, persistently making default in performing its functions, and making unauthorized expenditure. The Sarpanch filed a writ petition challenging the dissolution order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sarpanch had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as the order of dissolution was not void but voidable and the Gram Panchayat had not chosen to complain about the dissolution. The court also held that the acts and omissions alleged in the charge memo were not relevant as the charge was substantially directed against the corporate body of the Gram Panchayat. The court further held that section 52 of the Gram Panchayats Act was applicable as the Gram Panchayat had persistently made default in performing its functions and exceeded and abused its powers. The court also held that the Collector could have taken action under section 144 against the Sarpanch, but that did not preclude the Collector from exercising jurisdiction under section 52.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sarpanch had locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 2. Whether the acts and omissions alleged in the charge memo were relevant. 3. Whether section 52 of the Gram Panchayats Act was applicable. 4. Whether the Collector could have taken action under section 144 against the Sarpanch.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of dissolution was not void but voidable and the Gram Panchayat had not chosen to complain about the dissolution. 2. The acts and omissions alleged in the charge memo were not relevant as the charge was substantially directed against the corporate body of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Section 52 of the Gram Panchayats Act was applicable as the Gram Panchayat had persistently made default in performing its functions and exceeded and abused its powers. 4. The Collector could have taken action under section 144 against the Sarpanch, but that did not preclude the Collector from exercising jurisdiction under section 52.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER
1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Collector, Nalgonda dated 7-12-1966 dissolving the Gram Panchayat.
2. The material facts are that one Sri. A. Satyanarayana Reddy was the Sarpanch of Jagireddy Gudem Gram Panchayat from 1953 to 1960. S. No. 455 is a poramboke land situated in the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayatin 1962, there was some dispute as to whether this is a Government poramboke land or belonged to a Devasthanam. The Revenue Divisional Officer held in 1962 that it is a Government poramboke land and submitted at report to the District Collector. There were at that time some temporary and partly permanent structures on a portion of the said land and were occupied by some hotelliers. The Gram Panchayat made some constructions on this land. The succeeding Gram Panchayat also made some additional constructions on the said land. One Indrasena Reddy was appointed as village representative and was entrusted with the construction work, After the term of Sri A. Satyanarayana Reddy concluded in 1961 as Sarpanch, one Sri Venkata Reddy was elected as the Sarpanch. He continued in his office till 1966 when the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayat was elected in 1964 and the petitioner was the member of that Gram Panchayat. While so, the Collector, Nalgonda issued a show cause notice to the Gram Panchayat asking it to explain as to why it should not be dissolved for the charges made therein. These charges were considered by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 19-4-1966 and an explanation was submitted to the District Collector. Considering the explanation and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector by the impugned order dissolved the Gram Panchayat. He held that the Sarpanch and the Gram Panchayat have not been evincing any interest in the administration of the Gram Panchayat and have been causing monetary loss to the Gram Panchayat. The Collector also found all the charges substantially proved. He therefore directed the dissolution, and it is this order that is now impugned in this writ petition filed by the Sarpanch of the dissolved body.
3. The writ petition can be dismissed on a short ground that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition. This question naturally turns upon the question as to whether the order of dissolution is void or voidable. That it is not a void order is conceded. Before the dissolution in this case a proper notice was given to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram panchayat submitted its explanation and the Collector considered it. No procedural irregularity or any infirmity has been pointed out. It is also not in dispute that the Collector has the necessary power to dissolve the Gram Panchayat.
4. Once it is conceded that the order of dissolution is not a void order, then what has to be seen is whether any action including the filing of writ petition can be taken by any single member of the dissolved Gram Panchayat or even by the Sarpanch.
5. The petitioner undoubtedly was the Sarapanch at the time of the dissolution of the Gram Panchayat. But that by itself does not give him any right to file the writ petition or complain about the dissolution independently of the Gram Panchayat. In order to complain effectively, he must show that he is representing the Gram Panchayat of filing the writ petition on its behalf or at least show that by reason of certain circumstances such, for example as that the Gram Panchayat could not now use its seal because it has already been dissolved and taken over by the Collector or for any other valid reason it was found impracticable for all the members of the dissolved Gram panchayat to meet to pass the necessary resolution or the council cannot be the petitioner. Had that been shown, then according to the well recognised procedure, the petitioner can file the writ petition on behalf of himself and the other members of the Gram Panchayat making the Gram Panch
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.