GANPATRAO BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the Sarpanchs of Gram Panchayats of Bhuinj, Kikli, Chindhavli and Jamb, Taluka Wai, District Satara. There was a demand for creation of a separate Gram Panchayat of Kisanveernagar. The Standing Committee of Satara Zilla Parishad had passed a resolution on 27th July, 1984 for formation of the separate Gram Panchayat for Kisanveernagar. The proposed Gram Panchayat was to be formed out of the areas of the existing four Gram Panchayats. Section 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 contemplates a Panchayat for each village, but section 4 (1) thereof authorises the Government to declare any local area or group of revenue villages as one village for this purpose and thereafter include or exclude any part of such area after consulting (1) the Panchayat concerned and (2) the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad, Satara, the Commissioner, Pune Division, the respondent No. 2 herein, had issued notices to the aforesaid four Gram Panchayats with a view to consult them in respect of the proposal for establishment of the new Village Panchayat to be known as Kisanveernagar Gram Panchayat. All the four Panchayats opposed the formation of the new Gram Panchayat by passing resolutions. It appears that at that time the Government had taken a policy decision not to establish a new Gram Panchayat and a general stay was granted against the establishment of any such Panchayat. It appear that the stay was lifted sometime in 1988. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued the notification dated 25th August 1988 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act, read with Government Notification, Rural Department No. VPA-1270-52138-E dated 8th December 1970 and declared the area comprising the revenue villages (1) Bhuinj, (2) Kikli, (3) Chindhavli, (4) Jamb and (5) Kisanveer Nagar in the Wai Taluka of Satara District to be five separate villages viz. (1) Bhuinj, (2) Kikli, (3) Chindhavli, (4) Jamb and (5) Kisanveer Nagar with effect from the date of publication of the said notification dated 25th August, 1988 in the official gazette. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara passed an order dated 13th October, 1988 and appointed Shri L. R. Yadav, Extension Officer (Panchayat), as Administrator under section 160 (1) for all the five village Gram Panchayats. The legality and validity of the notification dated 25th August, 1988 and the order dated 17th October, 1988 is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR. Ketkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised three contentions in support of the petition namely, (1) that there was no effective consultation inasmuch as there was no discussion or exchange of views and in any event having regard to the passage of time between the date of the alleged consultation and the final notification, a further consultation was necessary in view of the fact that a new elected body came into power in the meanwhile; (2) that the notification has been issued without notice and without hearing the individual members of the Panchayat who were compelled to vacate the office on reconstitution of the village Panchayats and (iii) that section 4 (2) (b) is constitutionally invalid as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the said sub-section confers unbridled and uncanalised powers on the respondent No. 2.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is now well settled that ordinarily and broadly "consultation" means communication of the views between the consulted and the consultor, on the subject and further exchange of thoughts thereabout. In (Sheshrao v. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division) reported in A. I. R. 1985 Bombay 256, the Full Bench of this Court held that the extent, nature and importance of consultation, must depend on the subject, object and the context thereof, under a given statute. Direct discussion is not an indispensable ingredient of any consultation, nor lengthy correspondence can be held to be "must" when it is found to be unnecessary in a given case. In these circumstances, the argument of Mr. Ketkar that there was no effective consultation is liable to be rejected. The next contention is that after the Panchayats were consulted, there was a long passage of time and, therefore, a fresh consultation was necessary. This submission is again without any force. The fact that processing of the proposal took about four years by itself cannot be of any consequence. The act does not prescribe any period of limitation much less the effect of delay. In the present case, the notification could not be issued in view of the general stay granted by the Government. The order of stay was lifted in 1988 and immediately thereafter the notification was issued. Thus there was no necessity of any fresh consultation.