PARIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have by way of this petition challenged the order dated 11th June, 2002 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, whereby, respondent no. 1 under the provisions of Section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 has passed an order of supersession of the Pariya Gram Panchayat, on the ground that the Panchayat failed to pass the budget for the year 2002-03.

(2.) The facts of the case as they emerge from the record of the petition are that the meeting was called by the Panchayat for approval of budget for the year 2002-03 on 26th March, 2002. However, the same was not convened and, therefore, the budget was not passed. Subsequently, on 30th March, 2002, an attempt was made to pass the budget, but since eight members were present, the budget could not be passed. The petitioner submitted that thereafter a special meeting was convened, wherein in the presence of the members, who had supported the budget a Resolution dated 30th March, 2003, was passed, whereby the budget for the year 2002-03 came to be approved. The petitioner further submitted that though necessary procedure was followed for approving the budget for the year 2002-03, the Taluka Development Officer, Pardi, exercised suo motu powers and instead of approving the Resolution, suspended the said Resolution vide order dated 11th June, 2002. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Mr. Majmudar learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that before the order could be communicated, budget was passed on 4th February, 2002. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Nathalal Manilal Patel & Anr. v. A.R. Banerjee, Development Commissioner, reported in 1991 (2) [XXXII (2)] G.L.R. p.811, wherein in para 8, the Court has held as under :-