CWP No. 19901 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19901 of 1998 Decided on : 18-08 2010 Gurmeet Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.P.S.Mann, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondent no.3. MAHESH GROVER, J This petition was directed against the action of the respondent- State by which it created two Gram Sabhas by bifurcating from one Gram Sabha on the representation received by it from its residents. Annexure P-1 dated 18.5.1998 gave effect to such a decision. This decision however was rescinded on 27.5.2003 upon some representations being made by the officials of respondent no.1. But soon thereafter it was realised that representation by these officials was not accurate on facts and consequently the decision to withdraw Annexure P-1 taken on 27.5.2003 was once again reviewed and on 16.6.2003 two Gram Sabhas were once again created. After perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that decision of 16.6.2003 is not the subject matter of challenge and the only challenge is to Annexure P-1 dated 18.5.2003 which decision was superseded by decision of 16.6.2003 and hence the writ petition cannot be CWP No. 19901 of 1998 2 answered in the absence of any challenge to the subsequent decision. Besides with the efflux of time two subsequent elections have already taken place to these two Gram Sabhas and apparently the petitioner has not made any grievance out of it. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and also for the reason that there is no challenge to the decision dated 16.6.2003. Moreover, the controversy stands concluded by a decision of the Full Bench reported as 1993 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 59 wherein it was observed as follows:- “8. x x x x In our opinion, the words of the Statute are absolutely clear and plain. They admit of only one meaning, namely, that Government can constitute more than one Sabha Area for a village. The reason is not far to seek. It is quite possible that one village may have a population of five thousand. It may virtually be equal to ten small villages. If only one Panchayat is constituted for a village with a population of five thousand, the Panches may find it totally impossible to exercise the administrative and judicial powers which the Act envisages so as to effectively cover :the entire social needs of the village community.” A Panchayat has been visualized as “the smallest cell of a democratic polity which seems to educate people to manage their own affairs themselves in a democratic manner.” The Government is the best judge of the needs of the village community. The Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to permit the Government to constitute one or more Sabha Areas for any villages or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than five hundred. In CWP No. 19901 of 1998 3 fact, the provision even permits the Government to relax the limit of five hundred. In a given case, the Government may feel that a village with a vibrant and vainly population of two hundred needs to be constituted as a separate Sabha Area and in another case a group of three or four contiguous villages with a population of only 500 or more may be declared as one Sabha Area. The Statute confers a discretion on the Government to constitute one or more Sabha Areas for village or a group of contiguous villages. We find no reason which may persuade us to unnecessarily narrow down the scope of Government's jurisdiction by interpretation of the Statute.” August 18, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge