The power of the State Legislature to pass a Resolution dissolving the existing Panchayats is a Constitutional provision and, therefore, it cannot be disputed.

S. N. Phukan, C J.—In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ for quashing the Resolution dated 31st October, 1995 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and consequently the Notification dated 4th November, 1995 dissolving the Panchayats and the validity of section 125 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short as the Act of 1994) has been challenged in respect of the reservation of posts of Chairmen in the Panchayats on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1969 (for short as the Act of 1969), the elections were held to Gram Panchayats and the Panchayat Samitis in January 1992 and the term for the said Panchayats would expire in February J997, but these Panchayats were dissolved in pursuance of the Resolution passed by the Vidhan Sabha by Notification dated 4th November, 1995, before expiry of the said term. It has also been alleged that earlier there were only Gram Panchayats and Panchayat Samitis, but by the Act of 1994, another Panchayat, namely, Zila Parishads were constituted and these Panchayats could have been constituted by the election from the members of the then existing Panchayats without dissolving these Panchayats,

3. At the admission stage, we have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General and it was decided that the writ petition could be disposed of at the threshold.

4. It may be stated that by Notification dated 20th November, 1995 issued under Rule 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, the election programme has been announced and as per the said programme, the last date for filing of the nomination papers for all the three Panchayats was 5th December, 1995, date of withdrawal of the nomination papers was 7th December, 1995 and the poll would take place from 18th to 22nd December, 1995. In other words, the election process has already started and on this ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed due to delay. If the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have approached this Court immediately after the Panchayats were dissolved by Notification dated 4th November, 1995 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was moved before the Supreme Court, but it was dismissed giving liberty to approach this Court Even thereafter, there was a considerable delay in filing the present writ petition on the December, 1995. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner is trying to explain the delay, but we are not satisfied.

5. However, as contentions have been raised before this Court, we, would like to deal with these contentions.

6. Article 243-N of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything in Part IX of the Constitution, any provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a State immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the said Part, shall continue to be in force until amended or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority or until the expiration of one year from such commencement, whichever is earlier According to the proviso to the said Article, all the Panchayats existing immediately before such commencement shall continue till the expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a resolution passed to that effect by the Legislative Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, by each House of the Legislature of that State., Thus, the power of the State Legislature to pass a Resolution dissolving the existing Panchayats is a Constitutional provision and, therefore, it cannot be disputed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Resolution of the Himachal