Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, SHARFUDDIN AHMED
V.Ramachandra Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-07-64
ZILLA PARISHADS ACT - SECTIONS 2 (B), 3 (1), 3 (3), 63 - GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT, 1964 - SECTIONS 236, SCHEDULE VI, RULES 2, 11, 12 AND 13 - G. O. MS. NO. 532 DATED 15-5-1964 - VALIDITY - SCOPE AND EXTENT OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE - POWER OF REDELIMITATION AND RECONSTITUTION - WHETHER EXTENDS TO ABOLISH A PANCHAYAT SAMITHI - WHETHER THE POWER OF ABOLITION CAN BE INFERRED - WHETHER OFFENDS ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IS VITIATED BY MALA FIDES - WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO PRESENT THIS WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE VIRES OF THE NOTIFICATION - WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION IS ULTRA VIRES THE POWERS VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15-5-1964 issued by the Panchayat Raj Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners also imputed mala fides in so far as the reconstitution of the Gudur Panchayat Samithi in such a manner as to take away some Panchayats which were supporting him and attaching the same to some other Samithi is concerned.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification G. O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15. 5. 1964 of the Panchayat Raj Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which is the only notification that is impugned, being ultra vires the powers vested in the Government under Sections 3 (3) and 2 (b) is quashed not only to the extent the delimitation of the Block effects the abolition of the Samithi but also to the extent that such abolition affects the reconstitution of other Samithis.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government has power to abolish a Panchayat Samithi once constituted? 2. Whether the power of redelimitation and reconstitution can be exercised to annex to a Panchayat Samithi the total area of another Panchayat Samithi already in existence to its complete extinction? 3. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to present this writ petition challenging the power of the Government and the vires of the notification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of redelimitation under Section 3 (3) does not extend to delimit a Block for which a Panchayat Samithi has already been constituted, in such an unreasonable manner as either to completely extinguish the other Samithi or to so denude it as to affect its efficient functioning, or to affect its rights and liabilities, which it will if a substantial portion of its area is delimited under the guise of this power. 2. The absence of any such specific power for its exercise would militate against the construction suggested. 3. The petitioners who are elected to the Village Panchayat which formed part of the abolished Panchayat Samithi and were not only electors but also have right to say to which Samithi they should belong, certainly have locus standi to challenge the validity of the notification.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed with costs, Advocates fee Rs. 50. 00. This order will govern similar writ petitions filed to quash the G. O. Ms. 532 dated 15-5-1964.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition and many others which raise a similar question, challenges the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15-5-1964 issued by the Panchayat Raj Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner also imputes mala fides in so far as the reconstitution of the Gudur Panchayat Samithi in such a manner as to take away some Panchayats which were supporting him and attaching the same to some other Samithi is concerned. The petitioner/ who belongs to the Swantantra Party is the President of Momidi Panchayat in Gudur Taluk and was also the President of the Gudur Panchayat Samithi constituted on 1-11-1959. In the present elections also, he has been elected as the President of the Momidi Panchayat. According to him, the ruling party wanted to set up one Siddareddy Venkata Krishna Reddy for the Presidentship of the Panchayat Samithi during the 1960 elections, and for that purpose he was sought to be brought in as a co-opted member, but that attempt having failed and having realised that they have no strength, they did not set up any candidate to oppose the petitioner. Even in the forthcoming elections, it was a foregone conclusion that the 1st petitioner would be re-elected as the President of the Samithi unopposed, if the Gudur Samithi were to be left intact as it is. Faced with this situation, the present Zilla Parishad Chairman, Sri N. Chandrasekhara Reddy thought of a device to disrupt Gudur Block beyond recognition and used his influence to deprive him even an opportunity to contest for the Gudur Samithi, under the guise of general delimitation of Samithis in the State. The 2nd petitioner was the President Uppalamarthi Panchayat in Nayudupet Block. He is once again elected as the President for the said Panchayat for the term commencing with 1-7-1964 and is deeply interested in the affairs of the Samithi and in fact he declared himself as the candidate on behalf of the Swatantra Party to oppose the Congress Candidate. He also is aggrieved by the impugned notification, inasmuch as Nayudupet Panchayat Samithis was altogether obliterated and a part of it where the Congress had the majority was added to the Gudur Samithi and the rest of it was added to Sullurpet Samithi.
( 2 ) IT is further submitted that the Government with a view to reorganise the blocks, appointed a high-power committee under the Chairmanship of Shri M. P. Pai, for suggesting ways and means of administer these blocks more efficiently. The committee submitted a number of recommendations and the two relevant recommendations are (10 that the revenue taluk must be taken as a unit and (2) that the headquarters of the block should in no case be more than 15 miles away from any of the Panchayats in the block. After the recommendations were submitted by the committee, the Government adopted the revenue division as the unit instead of the revenue taluk and so far as the second recommendation is concerned, the Government accepted it. This recommendation was made with a view to achieve the object of compactness in constituting the blocks.
( 3 ) IN the Gudur division, there are 5 existing blocks, viz. , Sullurpet. Naidupet, Gudur, Kota and Venkatagiri. Under the impugned notification, the number of blocks is reduced to four from five, and this was sought to be achieved by abolishing the Nayudupet block and by adding portions of the said block to Gudur and Sullurpet. The Venkatagiri block was retained intact, without any addition or subtraction. The other three blocks under the impugned notification, viz. , Sullurpet, Gudur and Kota were redelimited introducing far-reaching changes. Apart from the abolition of Nayudupeta block, the Gudur block was so re-delimited as to take away 19 of the existing panchayats and adding 21 new panchayats to Nayudupeta Samithi and three panchayats from Kota Samithi. The petitioners allege that this action is mala fide and was made to achieve the object of securing majority for the Congress Party in G
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
