( 1 ) IS it the mandate of the Legislature that moment a Panchayat fails to pass budget on or before 31st March of the current year, the said Panchayat is required to be dissolved / superseded, or whether any discretion is left with the State Government not to effect dissolution or supersession of the said Panchayat even if such budget is not passed within the stipulated time, is the question which arises for consideration of this Court in this Special Civil Application.

( 2 ) ELECTION of Thasara Village Panchayat, the petitioner herein, took place in January, 2002. On the basis of the election of the Village Panchayat, the first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 21st January, 2002. Thereafter, the Sarpanch convened the meeting for approving the budget estimate on 27th March, 2002. However, in the aforesaid meeting, the Panchayat failed to pass the budget. Therafter, the Sarpanch again called the meeting on 5th April, 2002, for approving the Budget. Even in the said meeting, the budget could not be approved. On May 13, 2002, the petitioner-Panchayat passed a No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch and, thereafter, on 22nd May, 2002, the Village Panchayat, on a requisition of 23 members, called a meeting for passing the Budget and the Budget was passed in the said meeting. On the very same day, i. e. 22nd May, 2002, the Panchayat received a notice dated 20. 5. 2002 issued by the Development Commissioner, under the provisions of Section 253 of the Panchayats Act. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner-Panchayat was asked to show cause as to why the Panchayat should not be dissolved under Section 253 of the Act for not passing the budget within the stipulated time, i. e. on or before 31st March, 2002.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner-Panchayat, In-charge Sarpanch gave reply dated 10th June, 2002. In her reply, she pointed out that since the Sarpanch had not taken care of various factors in the Budget, ultimately, No Confidence Motion was passed against him and, thereafter, after calling a special meeting on 22. 5. 2002, the budget was ultimately passed by the Panchayat. It is also pointed out in the reply to the show cause notice that at the time of receiving the show cause notice, the budget was already passed by the Panchayat and, therefore, the notice in question may be withdrawn. It is also pointed out in the reply that the Elected Body has taken charge only about four months back and in that view of the matter, the Elected Body may be permitted to complete its term.

( 4 ) THE Development Commissioner thereafter, by his order dated 26. 6. 2002, came to the conclusion that there is a mandatory provision for passing the budget on or before 31st March of the current year under the provisions of Section 116 (3) of the Act. The Development Commissioner came to the conclusion that the provision of Section 116 (3) is a mandatory provision and that the decision of the High Court in the case of Ramanlal Manilal and another v. A. R. Banerji, 1991 (2) GLR 801, is a decision under the old Act of 1961, wherein there was no such mandatory provision which is now provided under Section 116 (3) of the Act of 1993. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, by the impugned order, passed an order under Section 253 of the Act, dissolving the Thasra Village Panchayat under the provisions of Section 253 of the Act. Subsequently, an Administrator has been appointed for managing the affairs of the said Panchayat. The aforesaid order of the Development Commissioner is impugned in this petition and this petition is filed by the In-charge Sarpanch of Thasra Village Panchayat, challenging the said order of dissolution, on various grounds.

( 5 ) MR. B. S. Patel, appearing for the Panchayat, submitted that because of genuine difficulties, the Panchayat could not pass the Budget within the stipulated time upto 31st March, 2002 and that lapse should have been condoned by the Develop