( 1 ) THE petitioners have by way of this petition challenged the order dated 11th June, 2002 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, whereby, respondent no. 1 under the provisions of Section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 has passed an order of supersession of the Pariya Gram Panchayat, on the ground that the Panchayat failed to pass the budget for the year 2002-03.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case as they emerge from the record of the petition are that the meeting was called by the Panchayat for approval of budget for the year 2002-03 on 26th March, 2002. However, the same was not convened and, therefore, the budget was not passed. Subsequently, on 30th March, 2002, an attempt was made to pass the budget, but since eight members were present, the budget could not be passed. The petitioner submitted that thereafter a special meeting was convened, wherein in the presence of the members, who had supported the budget a Resolution dated 30th March, 2003, was passed, whereby the budget for the year 2002-03 came to be approved. The petitioner further submitted that though necessary procedure was followed for approving the budget for the year 2002-03, the Taluka Development Officer, Pardi, exercised suo motu powers and instead of approving the Resolution, suspended the said Resolution vide order dated 11th June, 2002. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) MR. Majmudar learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that before the order could be communicated, budget was passed on 4th February, 2002. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Nathalal Manilal Patel and Anr. v. A. R. Banerjee, Development Commissioner, reported in 1991 (2) [xxxii (2)] G. L. R. p. 811, wherein in para 8, the Court has held as under :-"8. In our opinion, the combined reading of Sections 124, 126 and Rule 161 clearly indicates that the provision for approving the budget estimate before March 31, is not mandatory but directory. No consequence is provided for failure to approve budget estimate before March 31. The argument is that the Panchayat could not have approved the budget after March 31, as it would result in perpetuating the mischief which is sought to be prevented by sub-sec. (1) of Section 126. No sum can be expended unless such is included in the budget estimate approved under Section 124 or 125 except in case of pressing emergency under Section 126 (1 ). Now, if the above argument that the Panchayat is incompetent to approve the budget estimate after March 31, is accepted, all the functions of the Panchayat, which require incurring of expenditure would come to a stand-still. There is hardly any function which the Panchayat could perform without incurring estimate on March 31, it cannot perform any of its functions, if the above argument is accepted. It is true that, ordinarily the Panchayat should approve the budget estimate of the next year before the commencement of that year. But there may be circumstances under which it may not be possible for the Panchayat to do so and if that happens, would it not be open to the Panchayat to approve the budget estimate on subsequent date is the question which we have to answer. In our opinion, even if it is permissible to do so, it would be a hyper technical view to hold that provision to approve budget estimate before March 31, every year contained in clause (b) of Rule 161 of the Rules is mandatory so as to require strict compliance. It is true that the said provision does lay down that the Panchayat shall approve the budget estimate before March 31, every year. But having regard to the provisions of Sections 124 and 126, word "shall" should be read as "may". In other words, the above provision to approve before March 31, is directory provision requiring no strict compliance, but substantial compliance. Ordinarily, as already observed above, budget estimate has to be approved before the commencement of the next financial year but if, for some reason, it is not po