Back
1968 Supreme(Kar) 23
Karnataka High Court
Judges : M.Sadasivayya,G.K.Govinda Bhat,D.M.Chandrashekhar
THYAVANIGE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION - Respondent
Writ Petns 305 Of 1968
Decided On : 04/04/1968
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of consultation with the Taluk Board under Section 3 (2) of the Act is directory, not mandatory.
Headnote:
Consultation with the Taluk Board - The Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 - Section 3 (2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 3 (2) of the Act was the subject of the court's analysis. The court discussed the mandatory or directory nature of the requirement for consultation with the Taluk Board before exercising the powers conferred by the section. The court examined various legal principles and precedents to determine the nature of the consultation requirement and concluded that it is directory and failure to consult does not render the action invalid or inoperative.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Thyavanige Village Panchayat, challenged notifications issued by the respondent under Section 3 (2) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, alleging contravention of the Act. The notifications proposed to alter the status of the petitioner village and were challenged on the grounds of illegality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notifications were illegal and quashed them, restoring the status quo as before the notifications were issued.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the notifications issued under Section 3 (2) of the Act and the nature of the consultation requirement with the Taluk Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the notifications were illegal and the requirement of consultation with the Taluk Board under Section 3 (2) is directory, not mandatory.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notifications and restored the status quo as before the notifications were issued.
( 1 ) A division Bench of the court has referred to this Full Bench the following two questions of law:
(1 ). Whether consultation with the Taluk Board provided under Section 3 (2) of the Act (The mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959) is mandatory and the failure to consult renders the action taken invalid and inoperative.
(2 ). Whether action taken under Section 3 (2) of the Act is not amenable to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
( 2 ) THE reference of the first of these two questions was necessitated by the conflict between decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In K. Venkategowda v. State of Mysore, (1963)1 Mys LJ 150 the Bench consisting of Somnath Iyer and Mr. Iqbal Hussain, JJ. , held that the notification impugned in that case, made under Section 3 (2) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), could not be sustained as it was not made after consultation with the Taluk Board. In Town Panchayat Committee, Konnur v. State of Mysore, (1966) 1 Mys LJ 444 another Bench consisting of Tukol and Bhimmiah, JJ. held that consultation with the Taluk Board under Section 3 (2) of the Act is not mandatory and failure or absence of such consultation, does not invalidate such Notification. The earlier Bench decision does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the later Bench which has taken a contrary view.
( 3 ) IT is convenient to set out the relevancy provisions of the Act and of the Mysore Village panchayats Declaration of Villages (Procedure) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). These Rules were made by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 210 read with Section 3 of the Act.
( 4 ) THE word 'village' has been defined by Section 2 (45) Of the Act as an area comprising a revenue villages, which is declared to be a village under the Act.
( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the Act reads:- 3. Declaration of village:-- (1) whenever the Govt. after making such inquiry as may be prescribed, is satisfied, that any area comprising a revenue village or a group of revenue villages has a population of not less than one thousand and five hundred, but not more than ten thousand, it shall, by notification in the official gazette, declare such are to be a village; provided that the Government mat, for special reasons and by notification in the official gazette, declare any area comprising a revenue village having a population of less than one thousand and five hundred, or more than ten thousand, to be a village under this Section.
(2 ). The Government may, after consultation with the Taluk Board, by notification, at any time- (a) include within any village or exclude from any village, any revenue village, or (b) declare that any area shall ceases to be a village. (3 ). A village having a population of not less than five thousand and an annual income estimated at not less than ten thousand rupees may be declared by the Government by Notification to be a panchayat town. Explanation :--For purposes of the Section 'population' means the population determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 4 (2) of the Rules reads:
(2) The group of revenue villages shall, as far as may be practicable, be made with due regard to geographical contiguity and facility of communications between the different revenue villages in the group. Rule 5 reads: the list prepared under Rule 3 along with such other particulars as the Government may require shall be sent to the Commissioner who shall with his remarks thereon forward them to the government.
( 6 ) RULE 6 provides that on receipt of the lists and the particular under R. 5, the Government shall consider the suitability of the proposals made, and subject to such modifications as it deems fit, publish a notification specifying the areas comprising single revenue villages or group of revenue villages proposed to be declared as village under sub-section (1) of
