BANDU ARJUN ZANZANE Vs. COMMISSIONER PUNE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions pertain to the issuance of Notifications while exercising power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and as per the order passed in Writ Petition No.5880 of 1988 on 13-12-1988 it was ordered to be heard with Writ Petition No.4454 of 1988 and accordingly we have heard the counsel for the petitioners in both the matters as well as the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents. We will first deal with the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5880 of 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner-the Village Panchayat, Sateli has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the Notification issued by the first respondent dated 28-10-1988 by which notification the Commissioner, Konkan Division has, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 4(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 read with Government Rural Development Department Notification dated 8-12-1970 declared within the local limits of village Sateli comprising of survey numbers mentioned in the schedule to be villages to be known by the name of (1) Sateli and (2) Bhedsi respectively with effect from the date of the publication of the official gazzette. Another notification issued on the same day by the Commissioner of Konkan Division in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 read with Government in Rural Development Department Notification dated 8-12-1970 in consultation with the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and the Village Panchayat, Sateli, Taluka:Savantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg declared that the local area comprising the revenue village Sateli shall cease to be village with effect from publication of the notification in the official gazette. As averred in the petition the petitioner village panchayat was duly constituted under the Village Panchayats Act. As per the resolution passed in the meeting of the said village panchayat on 11-11-1988 Shri Dattaram B.Rane was authorised to file the petition before this Court and accordingly the petition was affirmed by the said Shri Rane and the same was filed on 7-12-1988. The petitioner No.1 is the village panchayat and the rest of the petitioners are the residents of village Sateli and they are duly elected members of the petitioner No.1 panchayat. In the petition the notification issued by the respondent No.1 was challenged by the petitioners panchayat as well as the remaining petitioners in their individual capacity. While filing the petition the petitioner has annexed certain documents as well as the petitioner No.1 panchayat runs smoothly and there are certain facilities and amenities in the said panchayat which is also referred to by the petitioners in this petition at paragraph 4 which reads as under:

(3.) IT is further reported in his report that as per the request of the residents of Bhedashi if two independent Gram Panchayats are established, only one Gramsevak can look after the affairs of this two Gram Panchayats and the Chief Executive Officer has opined that he is in favour of establishing two independent Gram Panchayats and requested that considering all the above facts, a suitable decision be taken. It is further reflected that the Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg in its Standing Committee passed a Resolution on 27-9-1988 for forming two separate Panchayats viz. Sateli and Bhedashi and accordingly the Chief Executive Officer has submitted the proposal in favour of the Commissioner, Konkan Division for necessary action. The proposal contains of about 137 pages. A copy of the letter dated 28-9-1988 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sidhudurg addressed to the Commissioner, Konkan Division was received by the petitioner Panchayat on 15-10-1988 and the Sarpanch of the Sateli Village Panchayat made a representation to the first respondent Commissioner on 18-10-1988 requesting the first respondent not to take decision in favour of the division of the Panchayat. The said representation dated 18-10-1988 issued by the Sarpanch in favour of the first respondent Commissioner is also annexed to the petition and we have perused the said representation of the petitioner Panchayat. On going through the said representation dated 18-10-1988 it was pointed out to the Commissioner that no reason has been given for the proposed division by the Government. It was also highlighted that in the meeting held on 21-9-1988 the Block Development Officer was also present and the question was raised in the statement to give reasons for the division of the panchayat. However, even in the said meeting the Block Development Officer has not disclosed any reason. It is pointed out that the remarks of the Chief Executive Officer that the relations of the people of the two villages are not cordial is too vague and cannot be the basis of the division, and it is requested not to take decision for division of the two villages.