The Government's power to supersede a Panchayat under Section 102 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, is limited to the Panchayat's normal life, as specified in Section 11 of the Act.

Headnote:
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT - SUPERSESSION - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - EXTENT - BOMBAY VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1933, SECTIONS 99(1), 102, 107(2).
Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between the Kannada and Marathi speaking members of the Sankeshwar Village Panchayat in Belgaum District over the language to be used in the Panchayat's records. The Panchayat resolved to use Kannada, but the Collector suspended the resolution under Section 99(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1933, citing a likelihood of breach of peace. The Director of Local Authorities overturned the Collector's order, but the Government restored it under Section 107(2). The Panchayat was subsequently superseded for disobeying the Collector's order.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Government's power to supersede a Panchayat under Section 102 is limited to the Panchayat's normal life, as specified in Section 11 of the Act. 2. The Collector's order suspending the Panchayat's resolution was valid as it was based on a genuine opinion of a likelihood of breach of peace, even if the Collector's view on the applicability of by-law 41 was erroneous. 3. The Government's order rescinding the Director's order and restoring the Collector's order was within its powers under Section 107(2) and cannot be challenged on merits. 4. The Government's finding that the Panchayat persistently disobeyed the Collector's order was justified based on the Panchayat's continued use of Kannada in its records despite the Collector's order and the Government's subsequent confirmation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government's power to supersede a Panchayat under Section 102 extends beyond the Panchayat's normal life. 2. Whether the Collector's order suspending the Panchayat's resolution was valid, considering the Collector's erroneous view on the applicability of by-law 41. 3. Whether the Government's order rescinding the Director's order and restoring the Collector's order was within its powers under Section 107(2) and can be challenged on merits. 4. Whether the Government's finding that the Panchayat persistently disobeyed the Collector's order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of supersession under Section 102 is limited to the Panchayat's normal life because: a) The section refers to 'such Panchayat,' indicating the specific Panchayat that is the subject of the order. b) Supersession beyond the Panchayat's life would effectively disfranchise the voters and deprive them of an elected Panchayat, which requires clear legislative intent. 2. The Collector's order was valid because: a) The Collector's opinion of a likelihood of breach of peace is sufficient under Section 99(1), even if his view on by-law 41 was erroneous. b) The Court cannot scrutinize the Collector's opinion and substitute its own. 3. The Government's order was within its powers under Section 107(2) because: a) The Government has the authority to revise, annul, or modify orders of subordinate officers. b) The Government is not required to provide reasons for its decision. 4. The Government's finding of persistent disobedience was justified because: a) The Panchayat continued to use Kannada in its records despite the Collector's order and the Government's confirmation. b) The Panchayat's failure to formally receive the Government's order does not excuse its disobedience.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the Government's order superseding the Panchayat was dismissed.

Judgment -

1. This petition is the result of an extremely unfortunate controversy between Kannad speaking and Marathi speaking members of the Village Panchayat of Sankeshwar which is situated in Hukeri Taluka in the Belgaum District. It appears that the record of this Panchayat used to be; kept in Marathi language. On the 15th May 1954, the Panchayat passed a resolution that the record should be kept in Kannad language. The Panchayat consists of 15 members, 11 of whom are Kannad speaking members and 4 are Marathi speaking members and the Sarpanch also happens to be a Marathi speaking member. On the 24th June 1954, the Collector suspended the execution of this resolution, acting under Section 99 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. An appeal was preferred to the Director of Local Authorities and he set aside the order of the Collector on the 15th July 1954, and directed that the resolution passed by the Panchayat should remain effective with the modification that bills and notices issued to members of the public should be in both the languages, Marathi and Kannad. On the 7th August 1954, the Government acting under Section 107(2) rescinded the order of the Director of Local Authorities and restored the order of the Collector. A show cause notice was issued against the Panchayat on the 22nd April 1955 to show cause why it should not be superseded because it had disobeyed the order passed by the Collector which was confirmed by Government and ultimately the Government on the 8th July 1955 passed a resolution superseding the Panchayat for a period of two years with effect from 15th July 1955. It is this resolution that is being challenged by the petitioners who are the eleven Kannad speaking members of the Panchayat.

2. Now the first ground on which the challenge is made is that the order passed by Government is beyond its competence inasmuch as it supersedes the Panchayat beyond its life-time. The first meeting of this Panchayat was held on the 3rd October 1952 and under Section 11 the term of office of the members is four years. Therefore, the natural life of the Panchayat would come to an end on the 3rd October 1956. The result of the Governments resolution is that the Panchayat continued to be superseded from the 15th July 1955 to the 15th July 1957 which is beyond the 3rd October 1956, and Mr. Jahagirdars contention is that it is not competent to the Government to supersede a body beyond its natural existence. Now, in order to appreciate this contention, we must look at the language of the section which confers the power upon Government to supersede a Panchayat, viz. Section 102. The first part of the section deals with the conduct of a panchayat which entitles the Government either to dissolve such Panchayat or supersede such Panchayat for the period specified in the order and the consequences of dissolution and supersession are set out in the section. When a Panchayat is dissolved or superseded, all members of the Panchayat shall, from the date specified in the order, vacate their offices as such members, and Sub-section (3) of Section 102 provides that when a Panchayat is dissolved, it shall be reconstituted in the manner provided in the Act. In the case of supersession there is a further consequence and that is that all the powers and duties of the Panchayat shall, during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed by such person or persons as the State Government may, from time to time, appoint in that behalf and all property vested in the Panchayat shall, during the period of supersession, vest in the State Government, and Section 102 (4) (c) provides that on the expiry of the period of supersession, the Panchayat shall be reconstituted in the manner provided in the Act, and the persons vacating office shall be eligible for re-election or re-nomination. Now, it is obvious that supersession is a much more severe penalty to be imposed upon a Panchayat than a dissolution because on dissolution the Panchayat c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis