SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Guj) 309

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.L.DAVE, J.N.Bhatt, K.R.VYAS
PRUTHVISINH AMARSINH CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
K.D.RAWAT - Respondent
S.C.A.2804 of 2001
Decided On : 04/28/2004

Advocates Appeared: A.D.OZA, ANANT S.DAVE, B.M.MANGUKIYA, PINAKIN M.RAVAL, RAJESH R.DEVAL

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - 243-B - Panchayat Act,1993 Section 7, sub-section 2 of Section 7 - Panchayat Act,1961 Section 9 - New Act - Section 7,7 (2) - Old Act - Section 9 (2) - Two matters are placed before this Larger Bench by virtue of an order passed by the Acting Chief Justice following an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in these matters referring the matters to Division Bench / Larger Bench - petitions are filed under Articles of the Constitution of India for a Writ of mandamus or direction for quashing and setting aside Notification dated issued by the State of under Section - Under the said Notification the State Government excluded the local area of from existing - By the said Notification State Government created new areas of and comprising of local areas - Challenge is also made to Notification dated issued by the District Development Officer by which the Government has deprived - Held, Consultation has to be understood as a mechanism for collecting views selecting opinions eliciting information that can inform about development of a policy to a public policy maker at the state and national level - Views of the people of village in getting them participated in the process of decision-making and influencing decision-making process is not of a notion but is a vision and has to be understood with missionary zeal in a democratic governance - Concept of consultation in a democratic set up also augments culture and concept of a federalism - Consultation provides an involvement of obtaining important advice ideas and divergent opinions from various kinds of people regarding the formation, evaluation, monitoring - Failure to consult or departure from the statutory mechanism of consultation even if it be directory has to be taken very seriously as departure of such process entails evil and civil consequences directly or indirectly knowingly or unknowingly deliberately or otherwise for effective efficient and meaningful governance and autonomy of self-government at the bottom of the pyramid will result into de-generation de-composition and disintegration of the process of democratic values rule of law and fundamental principles of natural justice as opposed to the evolution of the humanistic and logistic rights - Reference is in the result answered accordingly.

A. L. DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THESE two matters are placed before this Larger Bench, by virtue of an order passed by Honble the Acting Chief Justice, on 19th June, 2003, following an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, on 8th October, 2001 in these matters, referring the matters to Division Bench / Larger Bench.

( 2 ) THESE petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of mandamus or direction for quashing and setting aside Notification dated 3rd April,2001, issued by the State of Gujarat under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act,1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the New Act" ). Under the said Notification, the State Government excluded the local area of Govindpura from existing area of Veda Gram Panchayat. By the said Notification, the State Government created new areas of Veda and Govindpura Gram Panchayatas comprising of local areas of Veda (Revenue Village) and Govindpura (Petapara ). A challenge is also made to Notification dated 16th April,2001 issued by the District Development Officer, Gandhinagar, by which the Government has deprived Veda (Govindpura Gram Panchayat) and Kalol Taluka of Gandhinagar District and created Veda and Govindpura, two separate Villages and also appointed Administrator.

( 3 ) IN order that the points under Reference and the contentions in Reference thereto can be better appreciated, certain facts in backdrop of which issues have arisen, need to be stated :3. 1 the State of Gujarat issued a Notification on 23rd May,1984 in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act,1961 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Old Act") of which the area covered by Govindpura was excluded from Veda Gram Panchayat and a separate Gram Panchayat was declared in respect of the excluded area of Govindpura. This resulted into filing of Special Civil Application No. 3322 of 1984 before this Court by Veda Gram Panchayat challenging the said Notification. The said petition was rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 5th July,1984. Aggrieved by the said order, Letters Patent Appeal No. 290 of 1984 was preferred and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal by order dated 20th July,1984. While dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench observed that, "the Panchayat can bring their grievances or complaints before the Competent Authority and there is nothing in law or logic to take away their right to re-consider the above decision". 3. 2 thereafter, the Development Commissioner passed an order on 24th October,1984, by which, it was held that earlier division of the Group Panchayat into two Panchayats required re-consideration and the bifurcation of these two Panchayats should not be made, and these two villages should continue to be governed by the common Group Panchayat and enjoy common set of facilities jointly as was the case in past. Being aggrieved by the said Notification, resident of Village Govindpura preferred Special Civil Application No. 5539 of 1984 in this Court, where learned Single Judge rejected the said petition by order dated 29th January,1985. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 46 of 1985 was preferred against that order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14th February,1985. 3. 3 thus, the decision of the Government to bifurcate the area taken and effected earlier was challenged on judicial side and the decision was upheld. However, the said decision was reviewed subsequently and bifurcation was cancelled. That decision was also challenged on judicial side and that was also not entertained and confirmed by the Court, and both the Panchayats continued as a Group Panchayats till 1996. When in the year 1996, the State Government consulted the Gram Panchayats on 1. 1. 1996, 9. 1. 1996 and 7. 3. 1996 and thereafter, the State Government by order dated 9th October,1998 decided not to bifurcate Veda Gram Panchayat and informed the Development Commissioner in this beha





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top