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

2015 Supreme(Guj) 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
C.L. SONI, J.
HANSAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors. - Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8857, 8877, 8881 of 2015
Decided on : 25-06-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. ASIM PANDYA Advocate with MS. SNEHA A. JOSHI
For the Respondent:MS. JYOTI BHATT AGP MR. M.P. PRAJAPATI, MR. SIDDHARTH H. DAVE, ADVOCATE

Important Point
Rules of natural justice are not applicable to legislative action plenary or subordinate.

Headnote:Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 – Section 7 – Constitution of India – Clause (d) of Article 243 P – Notification of municipality area – Declaration of territorial area of a Gram Sabha and establishing a Gram Sabha for that area do not concern with interest of an individual citizen or a particular resident of that area – Rules of natural justice are not applicable to legislative action plenary or subordinate – Procedural requirement of hearing is not implied in exercise of legislative powers unless hearing was expressly prescribed – Petitions rejected.

       Result – Petitions rejected.

JUDGMENT :

C.L. SONI, J.

1. By the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sarpanch of Matarvadi Gram Panchayat, Ramnagar Gram Panchayat and Hansapur Gram Panchayat with some residents of villages have challenged the notification dated 27th April, 2015 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under Clause (d) of Article 243 P of the Constitution of India whereby the areas shown in the schedule attached with the notification of the said three panchayats are notified to be part of the Patan Municipality.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the three villages Matarvadi, Ramnagar and Hansapur are having small population and the people of the villages are availing various facilities and the benefits of the schemes of the Central as well as the State Government and there are substantial funds available with panchayats for the development of the villages. It is averred in the petitions that it is on account of the resolution passed by the respondent No.7 Municipality, the process for inclusion of village areas in municipality was undertaken whereunder the Gram Panchayats were asked to send their consent by resolution to merge their villages with the Municipality. However, the Gram Panchayatys objected to such move by passing the resolutions and conveyed the objections to the concerned authorities. It is their further case that on account of their objections, the village panchayats were excluded from the first notification dated 28.1.2015 issued under Article 243(P)(d) of the Constitution of India. However, all of a sudden, without any consultation with the panchayats, fresh impugned notification dated 27th April, 2015 was

abruptly issued without following any procedure and without affording any hearing to the petitioners.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi for the petitioners submitted that before issuing notification under section 243(P)(d) of the Constitution of India for notifying any area as Municipal area, consultation with the Panchayat was required or at least minimum procedure for inviting objection or suggestion is required to be followed for issuing such notification. Mr. Pandya submitted that in fact, when the first notification was issued, such procedure was undertaken as the objections of three gram panchayats sent through the concerned authorities like the Taluka Development Officer/District Development Officer were considered. Mr. Pandya submitted that the Government is well aware that exercise of power under Article 243(P)(d) of the Constitution of India for notifying any area of village as municipal area since entails civil consequences, bare requirement of consultation with the affected panchayats is required to be followed. Mr. Pandya submitted that at the time of first notification issued in the month of January, 2015 after considering the objections of panchayats which could be said as consultation with the panchayats, it was decided not to notify areas of the above referred three villages as municipal areas, however, within short span of three months, without any fresh material or fresh consideration or any consultation with the panchayats, impugned notification came to be issued. Mr. Pandya submitted that there is no procedure provided in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (“the Municipalities Act”) for declaring or notifying any village area as municipal area and what is provided by Article 243(P)(d) of the Constitution of India is simple definition which cannot be termed as source of power for notifying any local area of village as municipal area of municipality. Mr. Pandya submitted that in absence of any provision either in the Municipalities Act or in the Constitution for procedure to be followed before notifying any area as municipal area, the procedure as contemplated under section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (“the Act”) is required to be followed. Mr. Pandya submitted that for notifying any local are



























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