SHANTABEN POPATBHAI MAKWANA Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER GANDHINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Development Commissioner, by which Lilapur Village Panchayat is ordered to be dissolved under Sec. 253 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 for not passing the budget within the stipulated time, i.e., 31st March, 2002, as required by Sec. 116 of the Act. The Development Commissioner came to the conclusion that provision of passing budget by 31st March of the current year is a mandatory provision, mandated by the provisions of Sec. 116 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and since Lilapur Gram Panchayat failed to pass the budget within the aforesaid time, the Development Commissioner has passed order under Sec. 253 of the Act, dissolving the Panchayat and the said decision is impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Lilapur Gram Panchayat was constituted in the last week of December, 2001 and the petitioner No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch on 18.12.2001 and the petitioner No. 2 was elected as a Member of the Gram Panchayat on the same date. After the said election, the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 24.1.2002. The petitioner No. 2 was elected as Up-Sarpanch in the said meeting. As per the averment in the petition, the second meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held on 30.1.2002. In the said meeting, Budget proposals were formulated for the year 2002-2003 and the same were sent for approval to the Taluka Panchayat as provided under Sec. 116 of the Act. It is the say of the petitioners that the third meeting of the Panchayat was held on 13.3.2002 and till that date, the Gram Panchayat had not received the Budget estimates, duly scrutinised from the Taluka Panchayat, Lakhtar. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat informed the petitioners on 28.3.2002 that the duly scrutinised Budget estimates were received from the Taluka Panchayat on 25.3.2002 and, according to the petitioners, since only three days were left for passing the budget, it was decided to approve the budget by Circular Resolution. A copy of the Circular Resolution, dated 28th March, 2002, is annexed at Annexure 'A'. Thereafter, in the next meeting dated 16.4.2002, a Resolution, being Resolution No. 4(2), was passed confirming the Circular Resolution. However, since the budget was not passed by 31st March, 2002, the Development Commissioner issued a notice under Sec. 253 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Panchayat be not dissolved for not passing the Budget within the stipulated time. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioners, the Development Commissioner passed an order, dissolving the Panchayat, as, according to the Development Commissioner, the Panchayat has failed to pass Budget by 31st March, 2002, and, accordingly, passed an order of dissolution of the Panchayat on the ground that the provisions of Sec. 116(3) are mandatory and, therefore, the Panchayat is required to be dissolved under Sec. 253 of the Act.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this matter, it was strenuously argued by Mr. Parmar, for the petitioners, that the Development Commissioner has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that by Circular Resolution, Budget was passed by the Panchayat. Budget estimates were approved by the Panchayat on 28th March, 2002. It is submitted that at the time when show cause notice was issued, Panchayat had already approved budget and, therefore, there was no question of passing any further order under Sec. 253 of the Act. He further submitted that the provision of Sec. 116(3) is not mandatory and it is directory.