NATVARLAL KHODIDAS PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is serving as Talati-cum-Mantri and his services have been suspended by order dated 11/05/1988 by the Deputy District Development Officer Jamnagar. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order of suspension by filing suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Jamnagar. The trial Court granted interim relief staying the operation and further implementation of order of suspensions as prayed for in the application Exh. 5 against which the opponent original defendant filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of District Judge Jamnagar. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal reversed the order passed by the trial Court below Exh. 5. While deciding the appeal the learned District Judge also decided the contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division to entertain the aforesaid suit.

(2.) It was contendEd by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-District Panchyat that the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Jamnagar had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass the order. It was submitted that the Panchayat was State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore the suit could have been filed and entertained only by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathuradas Mohanlal Kedia & Ors. v. S. D. Munshaw & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 and also upon a decision of this High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mangal Traders reported in [1987(15] 28(1) GLR 514. After refering to the aforesaid two decisions the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act 1869 suit against Panchayat could have been filed only in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and hence the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) had no jurisdiction to pass the order. He further held that since the order was without jurisdiction it could not be confirmed by the Court and therefore it deserves to be set aside on that ground alone. However thereafter he has decided the matter on merits also.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid finding is clearly erroneous. There is substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant. In the case of Mathuradas Mohanlal Kedia & Ors. v. S. D. Munshaw & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 53 the Supreme Court has certainly held that Panchayat is State within the meaning of Art. 12 of tic Constitution. But all the instrumentalities of the State as defined in Act. 12 of the Constitution of India are not State Government or Central Government. Reference made to the decision of this Court reported in [1987 (1)] 28(1) GLR 514 in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mangal Traders is irrelevant. It was a case under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 The plaintiff who were dealing in certain essential commodities had fled a Civil suit in Court of CiVil Judge (S D.) with a prayer that the office of Civil Supplies Department be restrained from carrying on search and seizure. Against the interim order passed by the trial Court the matter had culminated into revision application before this High Court. While deciding the revision application the Court inter alia observed that if the order is passed by a Court which has no jurisdiction to pass the order then it cannot be said that the order is legal and valid. There 2 is nothing in the judgment which may even remotely indicate that Panchayat being State the suit has to be filed against it only in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) and cannot be filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.).