V MAOHUSUDAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sarpanch, Kambalapur Gram Panchayat made a representation on 24th May, 1982, to the Government complaining against Pebbair Gram Panchayat, that the latter was obstructing the holding of weekly market by the Kambalapur Grain Panchayat at Kistareddipet on Saturdays. On receipt of this representation from the Sarpanch, Kambalapur Gram Panchayat the Government passed an order in Memorandum No. 57429 Pts. III/82-1, dated 23rd June, 1982, forbidding the Pebbair Gram Panchayat from holding the weekly and cattle market on Saturdays and permitting the Kambalapur Guam: Panchayat to continue to hold the weekly and cattle markets on Saturdays at Kistareddipet village. It is the above order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that has been challenged by the residents of Pebbair Gram Panchayat, some of whom are also members of the said Gram Panchayat.

(2.) It appears from the order passed by, the Government that the Sarpanch of Kambalapur Gram Panchayat in his representation stated that the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat has been holding weekly and cattle markets at Kistareddipet village on every Saturday since a long time and that the Sarpanch and the villagers of Pebbair Gram Panchayat are obstructing the holding of those markets and that Pebbair Gram Panchayat itself is running a rival market on Saturdays. On receipt of the above complaint from the Kambalapur Sarpanch, the Government passed the impugned order without calling upon the Pebbair Gram Panchayat to explain why the order against it could not be passed. In fact, the Pebbair Gram Panchayat has not been given any notice whatsoever after receipt of the representation from the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat. The power of the Government to decide upon the complaint made by the Sarpanch of Kambalapur Gram Panchayat can only be referred, if at all, to section 234 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. Section 234 (1) of the Gram Panchayats Act reads thus :

(3.) A reading of section 234 (1) makes it appear that the Government gets jurisdiction under that section only when a dispute exists between a Gram Panchayat and one or mare other local authorities in regard to any matter arising under the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act or any other Act and the Government are of the opinion that the Gram Panchayat and the other local authorities concerned are unable to settle it amicably among themselves, the Government may take cognizance of the dispute. The language used in that section postulates (a) the existence of a dispute ; (b) that dispute should be between a Gram Panchayat and one or more other local authorities; (c) that dispute must be in regard to a matter arising under the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act or -any other Act; and finally, the Government should form an opinion that such a dispute cannot be amicably settled. It may be stated for the purpose of this case that clauses (a), (6) and (c) are not satisfied. Clause (c) refers to a dispute that arises under the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act or any other Act obviously made by a competent Legislature. I have not been shown how the dispute presented by Kambalapur Gram Panchayat against the Pebbair Gram Panchayat to the Government can be said to arise, under any provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act. Section 109 of the Gram Panchayats Act is the only section that has relevance to this question. Section 109 of the Gram Panchayats Act empowers a Gram Panchayat to provide places for use as public markets and to close them with the sanction of the Commissioner. Now, so long as Pebbair Grant Panchayat is providing a place within its own territorial limits to be used as a public market, no dispute can be said to arise under the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act in relation the running of that market with the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat. The running of the market by the Pebbair Gram Panohayat within its territorial limits is clearly sanctioned under the above section 109 and therefore cannot be described as infringing any right of the neighbouring Kambalapur Gram Panchayat. The exercise of a statutory power cannot inflict any legal injury to the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat, nor can it be regarded as giving rise to any legal dispute. The word 'dispute' used in section 234 of the Gram Panchayats Act should be understood as a legal dispute relating to rights and obligations of the Gram Pahchayat. Inasmuch as the Pebbair Gram Panchayat has not infringed and in law could not infringe any legal rights of Kambalapur Gram Panchayat by opening a Saturday market within its territorial limits, no legal dispute, can be said to arise under the provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act with the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the condition in clause (c) is not satisfied in this case. I am equally of the opinion that the condition in clause (b) also is not satisfied in this case. Condition (b) requires the dispute to be between a Gram Panchayat and one or more other local authorities. A dispute between one Gram Panchayat and another Gram Panchayat cannot be described as a dispute between one Gram Panchayat and other local authority. At best it can be a dispute between two Gram Panchayats. But the word 'other' occurring in section 234 and qualifying local authority clearly refers to a local authority other than Gram Panchayat. Other local authority can only be as Panchayat Samithi, Zilla Parishad, etc. Section 234 therefore does not comprehend a settlement of a dispute between, two Gram Panchayats. In any case, the language used by that section does not authorise the Government to settle a dispute between one Gram Panchayat and another Gram Panchayat. For that reason also I am of the opinion that the Government acted without jurisdiction in this case in taking upon itself the power to settle the so-called dispute presented by the Kambalapur Gram Panchayat.