THE PANCHAYAT BOARD, BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI KONETI KUTUMBA RAO Vs. THE INSPECTOR OF LOCAL BOARDS AND MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appln. by the Panchayat Board, Kankipadu, Vijayawada, Taluk, Krishna District, represented by its President, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Inspector of Municipal Councils & Local Boards dated 80 -3 -1950 purporting to supersede the Kankipadu Panchayat Board under Section 45A (1), Madras Local Boards Act for a period of one year with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Fort St. George Gazette. The order was passed by the Inspector of Local Boards in exercise of the powers delegated to him by Govt. under Section 233 of the Act. The reason for his action is contained in the preamble to the order which runs thus :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petnr. argued that under Section 45A(1), before the Inspector could pass an order of supersession, he had to form independently an opinion that the conditions in Section 45 have been fulfilled in respect of the particular Panchayat Board in question under Section 45A read with Section 45, it is the opinion of the Provincial Govt. & therefore the opinion of the Inspector of Municipal Councils after delegation that really matters & in this case, the Inspector was not given an opportunity to form his own individual opinion on the material available to him without interference by any outside individual or authority. So the argument of the petnr.'s counsel ran. If there is evidence, he contended, that there hag been an interference with his right to form his own independent opinion, then his order cannot be said to have been made bona fide & such an order can be quashed by this Ct. The gravamen of the charge consists in the fact that sometime before proceedings under Section 45A (1) commenced by the issue of a notice on 21 -12 -1949 to show cause why the Panchayat Board should not be superseded, the Govt. had expressed their view in unequivocal terms that there was sufficient reason for such a supersession. Learned counsel referred us to a letter from one of the Secretaries to the Govt. to the Inspector of Local Boards dated 8 -12 -1939. It is a demi -official communication requesting the Inspector to take necessary steps to supersede the Kankipadu Panchayat Board for one year. It was also definitely suggested in this letter that during the period of supersession, one T. Lakshmiah may be appointed as a special officer of the Panchayat Board, As appears from this letter itself, it was addressed on behalf of the Govt. after the current file relating to the subject had been summoned from the office of the Inspector by the Govt. It was thereafter on 21 -12 -1949 that the Inspector issued the notice under Section 45 -A(1). The Panchayat Board sent up an elaborate reply meeting the charges made against it in the notice. The Dist. Board, Krishna to which also a copy of the notice issued to the Panchayat Board had been sent, wanted further time to submit their report. The Dist. Panchayat Officer, Krishna, was requested by the Inspector of Local Boards to offer his remarks urgently on the reply of the Panchayat Board & it is in evidence that the officer offered his remarks on 12 -1 -1950 & that the Inspector of Local Boards endorsed his remarks. They were both obviously for supersession. The Inspector forwarded the file once again to the Govt., & the Govt. passed an order on 14 -3 -1950 accepting the recommendation of the Inspector that the Panchayat Board should be superseded & permitting the Inspector to proceed to take further action in the matter accordingly. On 30 -3 -1950 the notification superseding the Panchayat Board was made & it was published on 11 -4 -1950 in the Fort St. George Gazette.

(3.) ANOTHER reason why we have refrained from interfering with the order is that after the preliminary notice was issued, an explanation was submitted by the Panchayat Board & presumably it was considered & both the Dist. Panchayat Officer & the Inspector of Local Boards came to the conclusion that there was a case for supersession. The fact that finally the Govt. also agreed with them would not render their opinion any the less their own opinion. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the order of the Inspector was not an order made bona fide in the exercise of his powers.