CHICKAMUNISWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the Notification bearing No.CLN 2/CR-3/93-94 (Annexure-C) dated 16-8-1993 whereby Respondent No.3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar under Section 4 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act has specified Inorahosahalli as the headquarters of the Panchayat and the area comprising of the villages namely, Buadabele Honnenahalli, Madivala, Guttahalli, Gandhinagara, Kanibele, Doddaankandanahalli, Yaluvahalli, Karamangala, Tyaranahalli, Kashipura, Inorahosahalli, Ombattuguli and Goravanahalli and also the common order dated 7-9-1993 passed in GR.Pan.(K) Revision. Petn.No.1, 3 and 5 of 93-94 by the second respondent upholding the Notification. The learned Govt. Counsel raised objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He submitted that it is a matter of administrative policy and in this case, it is not proper for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his further grievance is that the matter has been disposed of by the Commissioner exercising the revisiona) power, and the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter, I have got the order passed by the Commissioner read over and translated into English by the learned Government Advocate and as well by the petitioner's Counsel so that I could understand the same. As regards the question that the petitioner is an aggrieved person and entitled to the relief or not, suffices it to say petitioner would have so entitled for filing the revision in view of the scheme of the revisional provision of the Act as per Chapter III of the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act, 1993 and more specifically Section 4 and sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 which reads as under:

(2.) It appears that the Legislature while making provision of establishing Panchayat has provided procedure there for as well limitations thereto to the effect that subject to the conditions of the special order or the general order of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is competent to declare an area comprising of village or group of villages having a population of not less than five thousand and not more than seven thousand to be a Panchayat area and can also specify its Headquarters. Sub-section 2 further provides that Deputy Commissioner may at the request of the Gram Panchayat but subject to the general or special order of the Government, either on the request made by the Gram Panchayat concerned or otherwise with the previous publication of the proposal by notification, increase the area of any panchayat area or diminish the same. He can also alter headquarters of any Panchayat area or he can declare that any Panchayat area shall cease to. be panchayat area. Sub-section (3) makes a provision for the revision of the order of the Deputy Commissioner either suo-motu or by revision petition moved within 30 days from the date of notification by any person aggrieved by such notification. The scope of revision has not been specified and therefore the power of the Commissioner with the appeal be equivalent to that of the Original authority, subject to the conditions the original authority exercise its jurisdiction. It is open to the Commissioner to either refuse and alter the notification, he can also modify it or he can reject the revision and affirm the order/notification passed by the Deputy Commissioner. His powers are as wide as the original Authority. One thing is clear that the Legislation has provided that if any person is aggrieved by the notification issued either under sub-section (1) or (3) either declaring an area to be an area within a Panchayat or excluding it from Panchayat area, for declaring headquarters of the Panchayat at a specified place and one feeling aggrieved thereby can file the revision against the same as well.

(3.) So, any person who feels aggrieved from that notification can file revision before the Commissioner and in such a case, it cannot be said that a person cannot be aggrieved and cannot be a party to the decision taken in the matter of fixation of headquarters or otherwise in view of the above Section itself, and nothing appearing from the perusal of Section 4 read with sub-section (3) providing otherwise. The Legislature 'has granted him that he can apply for revision but so far as the question is where the headquarters of the Panchayat should be located or not. This question with reference to the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be adjudicated by this Court The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to particularly in the matters of Writ of Certiorari or Prohibition to the question of jurisdiction or in the error of jurisdiction or illegal exercise of jurisdiction or error of law apparent on record. In the present case, as regards the question of location of headquarters of the Panchayat is concerned, Deputy Commissioner has passed the above order taking a decision of such matter looking to the local situation, the distance, convenience and allied matters. The Legislature provides that the Commissioner may revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner if he thinks so on any of the above circumstances. In the present case, a reading of the order which has been read over and translated into English by the Government Advocate reveals that the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner as well as the other Caveator have been considered by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has taken into consideration all aspects like its distance from the other villages and its location and he has also taken into consideration other matters with regard to establishing headquarters. When this question has been considered by the authorities, in my opinion, the orders of either Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner cannot be said that they are suffering from error of jurisdiction and nor from any of the errors has been pointed out. While passing the order, relevant situations with regard to its distance to the other villages and its connection to the Highway have been considered and place of headquarters established accordingly. Therefore as this Court does not interfere with the matters of policy unless the orders appear to be vitiated either by the error of statutory law or Constitutional Law I am not inclined to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution.