1997 Supreme(Bom) 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah B.B. Vagyani, JJ.
Ganpatrao Bhosale others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5346 of 1988, decided on 31-7-1997.
Advocates appeared :
R.G. Ketkar, for petitioner
C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
N.D. Bhatkar, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

Headnote:Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958

       Sections 3, 4 and 5--Government notification-Addition of new area for P.anchayat purposes- Validity challenged-Ground-It empowers the Govt. with untilled power-Held-Under conditional legislation policy guidelines not require d.-The contention in the present case is that after the Gram Panchayats were consulted, there was a long passage of time and, therefore, a fresh consultation was necessary. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 4(1)(2) shows that the Government has power to form or establish a new village, whereas sub-section (2) confers power on the Government to include or exclude any area from any village or otherwise after the limits of any village. The Government has framed rules under Section 4(1). The rules contemplate an elaborate enquiry in the matter before forming or establishing a new village Panchayat. The powers under sub-section (2) are required to be exercised by issuing a notification in the like manner. Thus, it is clear that the authorities are required to follow the procedure prescribed by the rules framed under Section 4(1) before issuing the notification under Section 4(2). Under the circumstances, the argument that Section 4(2)(b) confers unbridled and uncanalised power on the Government cannot be accepted.

       Sections 3(2), 4(1) and 5-Establishment of Gram panchayat-Challenge to notification of Government-Ground-Concerned panchayats not consulted-Held-For legislative functions hearing is not a necessity. In the present case, it is well settled that ordinarily and broadly consultation means communication of the views between the consulted and the consultor, on the subject and further exchange of thoughts there about. In AIR 1985Bom 256 (FB), held that the extent, nature and importance of consultation, musto depend on the subject, object and the context thereof, under a given statute. Direct discussion is not an indispensable ingredient of any consultation, nor lengthy correspondence can be held to be must when it is found to be unnecessary in a given case. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no effective consultation is liable to be rejected. As regards the grievance of the petitioners that the notification under Section 3 was issued without notice and without hearing the individual members of the Panchayat, it is required to be noted that the hearing under Section 3 is in the nature of conditional legislation and, therefore, is not subject to the rules of natural justice any more than is legislature itself. The rules of natural justice are not applicable to legislative action plenary or subordinate to legislative action of hearing is not implied in the exercise of legislative powers unless hearing was expressly prescribed.