OMPRAKASH KAWADUJI DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2009 dismissing the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has challenged order dated 10.11.2008, by which the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati exercised the powers of the State Government under section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and dissolved the village Panchayat, Pimpalgaon on the ground that seven out of thirteen members have resigned and their resignations have been accepted. The section, under which the Commissioner took action, reads as follows:-

(3.) Mr.Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have upheld the order of Commissioner, Amravati since the Commissioner has not given a finding that working of the village Panchayat has become impossible. According to the learned Counsel, it is in such circumstances alone that the State Government can exercise powers and not merely because the number has fallen below half. It must be noted that there is no such condition imposed by the section and there is no warrant for reading something which is not there. It is true that section confers powers on the Government which may be exercised at its discretion and there is no doubt that exercise of this power must be regulated by the principles of reasonableness and fairness as in case of administrative powers vested in the State. We, however, find, from the facts of the present case, that it cannot be said that power was exercised arbitrarily or unfairly. Due notice was given to the members of the village Panchayat before passing the order of dissolution. The submissions were heard from the members of the Panchayat, seven of whom submitted that they have raised several complaints of corruption and irregularities in the meeting of the Panchayat but in vain and they are not prepared to play role of onlookers and they, therefore, resigned. The Commissioner has observed that the members were forced to take the steps in the interest of the village Panchayat and in the interest of public. In the circumstances, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that smooth working of the village Panchayat is hampered and the village Panchayat is liable to be dissolved.