SCA/21527/2005 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21527 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== DERA CHHIKARI GRAM PANCHAYAT - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR AM PAREKH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR KAMLESH C KOTECHA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DA DESAI ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 24/10/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – Dera Chhikari Gram Panchayat has challenged the legality SCA/21527/2005 2/9 JUDGMENT and validity of the order passed by the Development Commissioner, State of Gujarat, Gandhinagar dated 22.8.2005 in dissolving the said Gram Panchayat in exercise of the powers under Section-253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short ) read with Section-116(3) and Section-116(4) of the Act by forming opinion that the petitioner Panchayat has failed to perform its duties under the provisions of the Act. 2. The petitioner Panchayat is constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and as per Section-116 of the Act, the said Panchayat is required to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year i.e in the present case the petitioner Panchayat was required to approve the budget estimate on or before 31.3.2005. In the present case, meetings of the village Panchayat were called on 28.12.2004, 18.3.2005 and 31.3.2005and the budget estimate could not be approved. On the contrary, even in the meeting held on 30.6.2005, the budget estimate was disapproved by majority. The SCA/21527/2005 3/9 JUDGMENT proceedings were initiated by the Development Commissioner, State Government, Gandhinagar under Section-253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act by issuing show cause notice and the petitioner Panchayat and its members were required to show cause as to why Panchayat should not be dissolved and considering the fact that the budget estimate could not be approved even it was tried on fourth occasion and considering the provisions of sub-section-(4) of Section-116, the Development Commissioner formed an opinion that the petitioner Panchayat has failed to perform its statutory duties and that the petitioner Panchayat could not show any justifiable reasons for not approving the budget the budget estimate on or before 31st March, 2005 and accordingly, by order dated 22.8.2005 passed the impugned order dissolving the petitioner Panchayat and pursuant thereto, an administrator also came to be appointed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Development Commissioner, State Government, Gandhinagar dated 22.8.2005 in dissolving the petitioner Panchayat under Section 253 of the Gujarat SCA/21527/2005 4/9 JUDGMENT Panchayats Act, the petitioner has preferred the present special civil application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri A.M.Parekh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Development Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of Section-253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner panchayat. He has also further submitted that even the petitioner Panchayat has also submitted an application to the Development Commissioner for taking action under the provisions of Section-93 of the Act for supervising the meeting of the Panchayat but the respondent No.1 has not considered the same and has passed the impugned order. He has also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Thasra Village Panchayat Vs. P.D. Vaghela, 2003 (1) GLR Page 676, and has submitted that passing and / or approving the budget estimate on or before 31st March is not mandatory and that failure to do so would not ipso SCA/21527/2005 5/9 JUDGMENT facto result into dissolution of the Panchayat and therefore, it is requested to allow the present special civil application. It is also further submitted by Shri Parekh that in fact, there was no reference by the District Development Officer and / or District Panchayat and therefore, the Development Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order. 4. It is required to be noted that the petitioner Panchayat is constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and the Panchayat is required to comply with the provisions of the Act. As provided under the Act, Section-116(3) requires every Panchayat to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March of the current year and in the present case, the petitioner Panchayat is required to approve the budget estimate on or before 31st March, 2005, which the petitioner panchayat has failed to pass as per sub-section-(4) of Section-116 where any village panchayat has failed to comply with the provisions of sub-section-(3) of Section-116 of the Act, it shall be lawful for the State Government to form an opinion SCA/21527/2005 6/9 JUDGMENT that the Panchayat is incompetent to perform its duties imposed on it or functions entrusted to it under the provisions of the Act. As stated hereinabove, in the present case, not only the budget estimate could not be approved on or before 31st March, 2005 and even subsequently and when the Development Commissioner has formed an opinion considering provisions of sub-section (4) of Section- 116 of the Act read with Section-253, the petitioner panchayat is incompetent to perform the duties imposed on it and functions entrusted to it under the provisions of the Act and has passed the order dissolving petitioner panchayat, it cannot be said that there is any illegality committed by the Development Commissioner. It is also required to be noted that the impugned order has been passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Panchayat and therefore, it cannot be said that the same is in breach of principle of natural justice. The petitioner panchayat has failed to show any justifiable reasons for not passing and / or approving the budget estimate. The request which was made by petitioner panchayat for supervising the SCA/21527/2005 7/9 JUDGMENT meeting under Section-93 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is after July, 2005 i.e. even after the show cause notice under Section – 253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and after even the budget estimate could not be approved in the meeting held on 30th June, 2005. 5. So far as reliance placed upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Thasra Village Panchayat Vs. P.D. Vaghela, 2003 (1) GLR Page 676, is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is not held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in that judgment that passing and / or approving of the budget estimate prior to 31st March is not mandatory and the same can be passed at any time afer 31st March of the current year but what is observed that mere not passing of the budget estimate on or before 31st March will not ipso facto lead to dissolution of the Panchayat and for the justifiable reasons the Panchayat can satisfy the Government and submits reasons for not passing of the budget estimate on or before 31st March and the same can be considered by the Government while forming an opinion SCA/21527/2005 8/9 JUDGMENT under Section 253 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that passing of the budget on or before 31st March is not mandatory, cannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the fact that thrice efforts were made by the Panchayat to approve the budget estimate and the same could not be passed even after 31st March, 2005 also, and when the considering the same, the State Government formed an opinion that the Panchayat is incompetent to perform its statutory duties and functions imposed on it under the Act and the Panchayat is dissolved considering the provisions of sub-section-(4) of Section-116 of the Act, it cannot be said that the same is any any illegal, arbitrary and therefore, the same does not call for any interference of this Court. 6. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present special civil application and the same is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. [ M.R.Shah, J. ] SCA/21527/2005 9/9 JUDGMENT =kailash=