Case: Godde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

in exercise of a quasi-judicial power. Section 62 of the Act confers a power on the Government to cancel or suspend the resolution of a Panchayat Samithi, in the circumstances mentioned therein, after giving an opportunity for explanation to the Panchayat Samithi. If the Government in exercise of that power cancels or confirms a resolution of the Panchayat Samithi, qua that order is becomes functus officio. Section 62, unlike S. 72, of the Act does not confer a power on the Government to review its orders. Therefore, there are no merits in this contention.14. Before we leave S. 62 of the Act, it may be noticed that the order dated March 7, 1962, was passed by the Government without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi. It was in violation of the mandatory provision of sub-s. (2) of S. 62 which says that the Government shall, before taking action under sub-s. (1), give the Panchayat Samithi an opportunity for explanation. This opportunity was not given and, therefore, that order was not legal.15. Now let us assume that the said order was made under sub-s. (1) of S. 72 of the Act. Two objections were raised against the validity of the order reviewing the previous order, namely, (i) there was no mistake of fact or law, and (ii) the said order, which was prejudicial to Dharmajigudem village, was made without giving an opportunity to the representatives of the said village of making a representation. The order gives in extenso the history of the dispute between Dharmajigudem and Lingapalem in the matter of location of the Primary Health Centre. It points out that all the earlier resolutions of the Panchayat Samithi were cancelled and the only outstanding resolution was that of May 29, 1961, whereunder the said Centre was directed to be located permanently at Lingapalem. Then it proceeds to say that the order dated March 7, 1962, was passed on a mistaken impression that it was a case of shifting the Primary Health Centre from one place where it was permanently located to another, while the correct position was that the place where the Primary Health Centre was to be located permanently had not till then been decided by the Government. In that view, in suppression of the order issued by it on March 7, 1962, it directed that the said Centre should be located permanently at Lingapalem as per the resolution of the Panchayat Samithi dated May 29, 1961. No doubt the statement in that order, namely, that the place where the Primary Health Centre was to be located permanently had not so far been decided by the Government, if taken out of context, may appear to be an incorrect statement, for the Government by its order dated July 6, 1960, approved the proposal of the Panchayat Samithi, Chintalapudi, to locate the Primary Health Centre permanently at Dharmajigudem. But an analysis of the various orders passed by the Panchayat Samithi and the Government discloses, as we have already indicated, that the Primary Health Centre was never permanently located at Dharmajigudem, that before the Act it was located therein subject to certain conditions which were not fulfilled, that after the Act the Panchayat Samithi, though it passed a resolution on May 28, 1960, approving the location of the said Centre permanently at Dharmajigudem and though it was approved by the Government by its order dated July 6, 1960, cancelled its earlier resolution in accordance with law on May 29, 1961 and voted for locating the Centre at Lingapalem. Therefore, the Government was right when it said in its order that it made a mistake of fact in passing its earlier order on March 7, 1962, on a misapprehension that there was a permanent location of the Centre at Dharmajigudem.16. But there is another flaw in the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963, i.e., it made the order without giving an opportunity to the representatives of Dharmajigudem who were prejudicially affected by the said order. Learned counsel for the State said that the appellant could not be considered to be a party prejudicially affected by that order. But, as we have stated earlier, the appellant was the President of the Committee which collected the amount, he was representing the village all through and he also deposited the prescribed amount with the Block Development Officer. The Government should have, therefore, given notice either to him or to the Committee, which was representing the village all through for the purpose of securing the location of the Primary Health Centre in their village. The order made in derogation of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 72 of the Act is also bad.17. The result of the discussion may be stated thus: The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The representatives of the said village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed: the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under S. 72 of the Act to review an order made under S. 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village.In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order- it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]the appellant a right to file the petition out of which the present appeal hasarisen? The appellant is the President of the Panchayat Samithi of Dharmajigudem. The villagers of Dharmajigudem formed a committee with the appellant as President for the purpose of collecting contributions from the villagers for setting up the Primary Health Centre. The said committee collected Rs. 10,000 and deposited the same with the Block Development Officer. The appellant represented the village in all its dealings with the Block Development Committee and the Panchayat Samithi in the matter of the location of the Primary Health Centre at Dharmajigudem. His conduct, the acquiescence on the part of the other members of the committee, and the treatment meted out to him by the authorities concerned support the inference that he was authorized to act on behalf of the committee. The appellant was, therefore, a representative of the committee which was in law the trustees of the amounts collected by it from the villagers for a public purpose. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the appellant had the right to maintain the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This Court held in the decision cited supra that "ordinarily" the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the petition. A personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest: it can also relate to an interest of a trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases as the expression "ordinarily" indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof.The appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. The petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution at his instanc is, therefore, maintainable.The result of the discussion may be stated thus: The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The representatives of the said village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed: the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under S. 72 of the Act to review an order made under S. 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village.In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order- it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case.