PANDALAPAKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. GOVERMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case demonstrates how the third respondent herein has become a victim to the group rivalnies of the Pandalapaka Gram Panchayat, Ramachandrapuram Taluk, East Godavari District.

(2.) The third respondent proposed to establish Sri Chamundeswari Boiled and Raw Rice Mill in R.S.No. 228/3/ of Pandalapaka Village and obtained a permit from the Commissioner cf Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, which was valid up to 17th July, 1979. He was, therefore, anxious for the construction and establishment of the Mill before that date. He was also expecting the machinery shortly and he felt it necessary to make preparations for installing the machinery. He submitted an application on 22nd February, 1979, to the Executive Officer for the grant of permit to construct the Mill and for the grant of licence for the same. Having kept it with him for two months, the Executive Officer returned it under N.Dis. No. 58 /72-A. 2, dated 16th April, 1979, to the third respondent with the endorsement that it should be resubmitted to the Gram Panchayat as under section 125 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the "Act") and the rules framed in G.O.Ms. No. 1249, dated 13th December. 1977, the Gram Panchayat is competent to dispose of the application. The Executive Officer also returned the plans submitted by the third respondent along with his application with a direction that he should enclose a certificate to the effect that the shed in which he proposed to establish the Rice Mill is suitable technically for the said purpose.

(3.) Aggrieved with the return of the application with the endorsement on the application and the directions given by the Executive Officer, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the District Panchayat Officer on 28th April, 1979, requesting him to issue necessary directions to the Executive Officer. The District Panchayat Officer dismissed the appeal on 19th May, 1979, and gave directions to the third .respondent that he should submit his application to the Gram Panchayat, Pandalapaka represented by the Sarpanch for necessary permission for the construction of the proposed Mill as required under rule9 of the rules issued in G.O.No. 387/ Panchayat Raj (Samithis-I dated l2th October, 1973 i.e.,Building Regulations) as amended in G.O.Ms. No. 1247/ Panchayat Raj (Samithis-I) dated 12th December, 1973. As advised by the District Panchayat Officer, he submitted application on 26th May, 1979, to the Gram Panchayat represented by the Sarpanch, Pandalapaka requesting the Panchayat to approve the plans and accord permission for the installation of the electric motor with rice milling machinery in the existing shed of Sri Suryanarayan Spinning Mill situated in S.No. 228/3 of Pandalapaka village. As the meeting was not convened earlier, seven members of the Panchayat gave a requisition notice on 19th June, 1979 to the Sarpanch for convening the general body meeting either on 2nd July,1979 at 10. A.M. or any date prior to that mertioning the subject for discussion. Then the meeting was convened on 2nd July, 1979 at 11 -30 A.M. All the eleven members attend the meeting. In the Executive Officer's note, it is stated that the plans, applications and other office filed pertaining tc it are kept before the Panchayat for clalification. The draft resolution prepared by the Executive Officer was placed before the members. The resolution reads as follows: - "The Panchayat has no right to accord permission and licence without the approval of the District Medical Officer, Kakinada Chief . Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad and the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad." Then five members expressed their opinion in favour of the resolution and six members against the resoluion. Immediately after the, views expressed by both the groups the group of the six members addressed a letter to the Sarpanch requesting him to treat their view as dissenting the resolution and take necessary action. On then next day i. e, 3rd July, 1979, again the self-same six members addressed another letter to the Executive Officer to the effect that the draft resolution states that the Panchayat has no right to grant permission and licence without the approval of the District Medical Officer, Kakinada, Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad and the Directors of Town Planning, Hyderabad and that resolution was opposed by the majority of the members that if the Panchayat does not send plans to the concerned authorities, those authorities cannot accord their approval and the resolution dated 2nd July, 1979, is not valid, since it was defeated by the majority of the members. They requested the Executive Officer to send the plans to the Technical Authorities mentioned above fortheir approval immediately on receipt of this petition. Then the Executive Officer addressed a letter to the Collector under Roc. No. 169,dated4th July, 1979 seeking instructions on the views expressed by the minority group and majority group on 3rd July,1979. The Gollector felt that it is a fit case in which he has to exercise his powers under sectionl 28 of the Act read with authorisation issued in G.O.Ms. No. 64,P.R.,dated 20th January, 1964 and in exercise of the power under section 128 the Collector directed the Sarpanch, Pandalapaka Gram Panchayat, under Roc No. 5808 of 1979. A-5, dated 14th July, 1979, to forward the plans to the District Medical and Health. Officer, Inspector of Factories Hyderabad and the Director of Town Planning Hyderabad for necessary approval as desired in the dissent note presented by the six members or 2nd July, 1979. On the receipt of the proceedings dated 14th July, 1979, the Sarpanch. addressed a letter to the Collector under Roc No. 169/79-A. 1., dated 26th July, 1979 stating that the permit issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies expired by 17th July, 1979, and there were instructions from the Government not to forward plans in the absence of the Civil Supplies permit, that there are many residential houses adjacent and around the proposed site and the establishment of the Rice Mill spoil the atmosphere due to sound, smoke odour be emitted during running process of the Mill and thus endangers public health and safety, that the owner of the sheds in which the rice mill was proposed to be established represented to the Panchayat that it was in a dilapidated concition and is unfit for the establishment of the proposed mill. He also raised several other objections. Regarding the resolution passed on 2nd July, 1979, he stated that the dissent given by the six members opposing the resolution would mean that the licence and permission should be given by the Panchayat without getting the approval of the Technical Authorities and this is against the rules and so, the dissent given by t,he members cannot be carried out. With regard to the letter sent by the six members on 3rd July, 1979 requesting Executive Officer to send the plans to the concerned authorities, he contended that the Executive Officer is not competent to do so in the absence of resolution. He further contends that their intention is to grant licence immediately as if the Panchayat has got every power and if they intend to send the plans to the concerned authorities they ought to have moved the same either in the requisition notice or in the dissent and there is no mention of it in both and in the absence of the same, the letter issued to the Executive Officer carries no weight as no members has right to direct the Executive Authority on this aspect. He also contended that the Collector has mistaken the ordinary letter dated 3rd July, 1979, as dissent and so such a direction has been issued under section 128 of the Act, though there is neither wrong action taken nor omission of the subject. He also contends that if the Panchayat issues the licence as per the requisition and dissent of the said members, then only the question of wrong action will arise so that the Collector can interfere as it is against the ruler. He also cor. tends that the subject was placed before the Panchayat at its next meeting on 23rd July, 1979 for discussing about the sending cf plans to the concerned authorities and after through discussion, the Panchayat has specifically resolved to refuse the application pointing outcertain glaring defects which are dangerous to human life and public safety and which involves the Panchayat in unnecessary legal complications. He also contends that since the proceedings dated 14th July, 1979, issued by the Collector were received in the evening after the Panchayat passed a resolution No. 110 rejecting the application of the third respondent, the directions received from the Collector became inoperative.