Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
Mahebubbhai Ahmadbhai Kadivar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 14495 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Fixing Date of Hearing) No. 1 of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 14495 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Bharat T Rao
For the Respondent: Mr Aakash Gupta, Ld.Asstt. Government Pleader, Mr Hs Munshaw
IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement to approve a Panchayat budget before 31st March is directory, not mandatory, and does not justify dissolution if the budget is approved subsequently.
Headnote:
(A) Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 - Sections 116 and 253 - Dissolution of Panchayat - The Development Commissioner dissolved the Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat for failing to approve the budget before 31st March 2022. The court held that the requirement to approve the budget is directory, not mandatory, and the dissolution was unjustified. (Paras 15, 28, 33)
(B) Administrative Functions - The court noted that the failure to pass the budget was due to lack of majority support and not incompetence to perform duties. (Paras 29, 33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, elected as Sarpanch, faced opposition from members of the Bhartiya Janta Party, resulting in the budget not being approved in two meetings held on 23.03.2022 and 31.03.2022. The Development Commissioner dissolved the Panchayat on 13.07.2022, citing inability to discharge functions.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the budget's late approval does not equate to incompetence and the decision to dissolve was erroneous.
Issues: The main issues were whether the failure to pass the budget warranted dissolution and the interpretation of the provisions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for budget approval before 31st March is directory, and the dissolution of the Panchayat was not justified as it failed to consider the context of the budget's non-approval.
Result: Petition rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Development Commissioner, dissolving the Panchayat on the ground that for the year 2022- 23 the Panchayat was not able to pass the budget before 31st March 2022 and therefore, unable to discharge its functions.
2. Brief facts, as referred in the petition, are as under:
2.1 The election of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat took place on 19.12.2021 and result was declared on 21.12.2021. Thereafter, the election of Sarpanch took place through voting and accordingly, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat. The said Panchayat consisted of 11 members including Sarpanch and the petitioner as Sarpanch assumed charge on 19.01.2022.
2.2 It is case of the petitioner that in Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat, out of 11 elected members, 5 members belong to Indian National Congress and 6 members belong to Bhartiya Janta Party. Since the members of Bhartiya Janta Party could not get elected as Sarpanch, they started creating problems in the administration of the Panchayat.
2.3 It is case of the petitioner that previously elected body of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat had on 18.11.2021, approved the budget of the year 2022-23 and forwarded the same to Taluka Panchayat for approval as provided under section 116(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (for short “the Act-1993”). As per section 116(2) of the Act-1993, the Taluka Panchayat has to scrutinize the budget estimates and return to the Panchayat within two months of its receipt with such observations and recommendations as it may make in respect of the budget estimate. Accordingly, the Taluka Panchayat after scrutiny of budget returned it to Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 24.01.2022.
2.4 As provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the Panchayat has to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year with such modifications as it may think fit having regard to the observations and recommendations made by the Taluka Panchayat under subsection (2) of the Section 116 of the Act. Since the same could not be done, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed by Development Commissioner dissolving the Panchayat. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aakash Gupta for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
4. Learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao for the petitioner submitted that as stated in the facts, elected body of Gram Panchayat had approved the budget of the year 2022-23 on 18.11.2021 and forwarded the same to the Taluka Panchayat for approval as provided under section 116(1) of the Act. As per Section 116(2) of the Act, the budget is required to be scrutinized by Taluka Panchayat and to return the same to the Gram Panchayat with observations and recommendations, which was done in this case on 24.01.2022. As provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the budget is required to be approved on or before 31.03.2022, however it could not be done for which, an order dated 13.07.2022 was passed and the same is erroneous because as provided under section 116(3) of the Act, the Panchayat is to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year as recommended by Taluka Panchayat under sub-section (2) of Section 116 the Act.
5. Upon receipt of the budget with its recommendations by Taluka Panchayat, the petitioner herein in compliance of provisions of section 116(2) of the Act, convened meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat on 23.03.2022 for which, agenda was circulated on 16.03.2022. The agenda specifically refers to approval of budget for the year 2022-23. Accordingly, meeting of Pipaliyaraj Gram Panchayat was convened on 23.03.2022 under the Chairmanship of the petitioner wherein, all 11 members remained present. In the said meeting, 5 members of Panchayat voted in favour of the budget, which was recommended by Ta
