IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2804 of 2002 Between: M.Simhadri Rao and another. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, reptd., by Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Linga Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj for R.1 & R.2. Sri N.M.Krishnaiah for R.3 to R.5. Sri K.Gani Reddy for R.6 This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed by the Member of M.P.T.C. and Sarpanch of Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 in G.O.Rt.No.132, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.IV) Department, dated 23-1-2002 and the consequential notification issued by respondent No.2 on 4-2-2002. Valasapakala village was a hamlet of Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat of Kakinada Rural Mandal. The said village was constituted into a separate Gram Panchayat by way of bifurcation in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.367, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.IV) Department, dated 13-7-1992 by respondent No.2 vide notification dated 10-5-1995. The schedule appended to the said notification issued by respondent No.2 clearly specifies the discreption of the local area excluded from Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat and forming part of Valasapakala, as comprising Survey Nos.66 to 80, 125 to 184. It appears that respondents 3 and 4, residents of Valasapakala Gram Panchayat, filed Writ Petition No.3036 of 1997 in this Court for granting appropriate direction to include the survey numbers in which the Godavari Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (for short “GFCL”) is situate, in their Gram Panchayat. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 16-10-2000 directing respondent No.1 to consider the said plea. Purporting to follow the said order, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.132, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.IV) Department, dated 23-1- 2002, wherein it directed respondent No.2 to issue further notification duly including the survey numbers in which GFCL is located in order to give effect to G.O.Ms.No.367 dated 13-7-1992. As a consequence of the said direction, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 4-2-2002 by excluding GFCL from Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat and including the same in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the action of respondents 1 and 2 is in patent violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that respondent No.1 has completely misconstrued G.O.Ms.No.367 dated 13-7- 1992 and proceeded on the erroneous premise that the said G.O., included GFCL in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel further submitted that under Rule 9 of the A.P.Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 1994 (for short “the Rules”), the District Collector shall give the Gram Panchayat, which is likely to be affected by alteration of the boundaries, an opportunity of showing cause against the proposal and that this Rule is violated. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj tried to sustain the orders impugned in this Writ Petition. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record. G.O.Ms.No.367, which was issued by respondent No.1, no doubt, contains a passing reference of GFCL. Paragraph No.7, wherein such a reference is found, is extracted below: “ The Government heard the case on 2-6-1992. The Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Advocate for the Ex.Sarpanch and the former Member of Gram Panchayat, Vakalapudi attended the hearing and their arguments were heard. The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari stated that Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat is having population of 3013 as per 1981 census is included by Valasapakala hamlet. The population of Valasapakala is 1013 as per 1981 census and it is at a distance of 1.74 KM from the main village Vakalapudi. The population of Vakalapudi is 2000 as per 1981 census. There are 777 assessment in Vakalapudi deriving house tax of Rs.91,420.68 and in Valasapakala there are 648 assessment deriving house tax of Rs.3,25,720.57 including the house tax of Rs.2,02,593.04 relating to M/s.Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited. He further stated that there is a Cinema Hall in Vakalapudi area”. However, in paragraph 9, which is operative and concluding part of the G.O., respondent No.1 while deciding in principle to bifurcate Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat by creating Valasapakala, directed respondent No.2 to constitute a separate Gram Panchayat by ensuring that the residuary Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat will remain as a viable unit as it has an income of Rs.91,420-68 ps., from house tax alone apart from the entertainment tax from Cinema hall and income from other sources. In compliance of the said direction, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 10-5-1995 with specific schedule. Admittedly, GFCL is not included in the said schedule pertaining to Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. However, in G.O.Rt.No.132, dated 23-1- 2002, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to include GFCL in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. The only reason for this direction is that it construed G.O.Ms.No.367 as including GFCL in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. In my considered view, there is no such direction given by the Government, though for the purpose of considering the viability of two Gram Panchayats it has taken into consideration the house tax pertaining to GFCL to be included in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat. The Government eventually left it to the discretion of respondent No.2 to constitute the Gram Panchayats by taking into consideration the viability of Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, exercised his discretion and constituted a separate Gram Panchayat for Valasapakala. Admittedly, the survey number in which GFCL is situated was not included in the schedule pertaining to the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, notification dated 4-2-2002 issued by respondent No.2, by which GFCL is excluded from Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat and included in Valasapakala Gram Panchayat, amounts to alteration of boundaries of the existing village. In such a case, respondent No.2 is bound to follow Rule 9 of the Rules, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “9. Where it become necessary to take action under sub- section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, to exclude from a village any local area or include in village any local area or unite two or more villages or parts of village or to alter the boundaries of any villages or to alter the name of any village in giving effect to these rules, the Commissioner shall, before issuing a notification therefore, give the Gram Panchayat which will be affected by the issue of such notification an opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to indicate its decision within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and consider the objections, if any, of such Gram Panchayat: Provided that where a Special Officer has been appointed to exercise the powers to perform the functions of the Gram Panchayats and its Sarpanch and Executive Authority, such Special Officer shall be given the aforesaid opportunity and the Special Officer shall make his representation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice after taking into consideration the views expressed by the members of the Gram Sabha at a special meeting convened for the purpose; Provided, further that if no reply to the show cause notice from the Gram Panchayat or the Special Officer is received within the period aforesaid, the Commissioner shall pass such orders as deemed fit to give effect to the proposal”. Admittedly, no notice has been given to Vakalapudi Gram Panchayat before issuing notification dated 4-2-2002. Therefore, the impugned notification issued by respondent No.2 is not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but also the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules reproduced above. While, certainly, a discretion lies in respondent No.2 to alter the boundaries, he is, however, obligated under the above mentioned provision to hear the Gram Panchayat which is likely to be affected by such alteration before exercising such a discretion. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 23-1-2002 and notification dated 4-2-2002 issued by respondents 1 and 2 are quashed. Respondent No.2 is permitted to initiate proceedings afresh, if he so desires, for alteration of boundaries of the two Gram Panchayats by duly following the procedure prescribed under the rules in force. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13-2-2009 MNR