S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.

( 1 ) OVER three hundred matters have been listed for hearing alongwith this petition. So far as the general points arising in the cases are concerned, all the matters have been heard together. For the purpose of convenience, all the contentions are referred to and dealt with in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is raising certain questions as to the scope of Section 4 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and the manner of exercise of powers thereto and limitation, in addition to challenging the validity of the said, provision itself. Petitioner also calls in question the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the order made under Section 4 (3) of the Act affirming the action proposed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 (1) of the Act.

( 3 ) IN challenging the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Act, two grounds are urged - firstly that it does not provide for principles of natural justice being observed and, secondly, the power is delegated to an authority without sufficient guidelines. These questions raised in this petition are already settled by the supreme Court in more than one decision. So far as the question of excessive delegation is concerned, the Supreme Court in ayodhya Prasad Vajpai v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, has considered this aspect. That was a matter arising under the uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samithis and Zilla Parishads adhiniyam. It was noticed therein that in ascertaining whether there are adequate safeguards or guidelines under the Act, the underlying policy and the objective of the legislation has to be taken note of. When such policy is set out in the enactment itself and if details are left to the State Government to determine what areas should be and how many Kshettra Samithis should be constituted in each District would not be a matter for the legislature to prescribe, but it would be a matter of detailed legislation because it is pre-eminently a matter which can be left to the determination of the Executive which is to act in conformity with the wishes of the local people, the political exigency of the situation and the requirements of the administrative control. In the present Act, in Section 4 it is provided that subject to general or special orders of the government, the Deputy Commissioner, if, finds it expedient to declare any area comprising a village or group of villages having a population of not less than five thousand and not more than seven thousand to be a panchayat area, may, after previous publication, declare such area as a panchayat area for the purposes of this Act and also specify its headquarter. Thereafter two provisos are set forth in relation to certain districts where the pupulation may be less than what is prescribed in sub-section (1), but not less than 2500 and it is also stated thereto in the next proviso that an area within a radius of five kilometers from the centre of a village could be declared as a panchayat area. It is further provided that the Deputy commissioner, may, with the previous permission of the government declare any area comprising a village or group of villages having a population of either less than five thousand or more than seven thousand to be a panchayat area. This Court had occasion to consider as to what is the criteria or the test that will have to be taken note of in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Act which is akin to Section 4 of the Karnataka zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats, Act in Bhadre Gowda v State of karnataka. If these aspects are borne in mind, it cannot be said that there is any excessive delegation and that the said provisions lack any guidelines. So far as the observance of principles of natural justice is concerned, there is an obligation upon the Deputy Commissioner before h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document