PALA NARASA REDDI Vs. DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Vennachedu Gram Panchayat of Sattupalli Taluk in Khammam District. He was elected as Sarpanch on 4-6-81. A Gram Sabha meeting was conducted within 180 days as required by Section 25 (2). A meeting of the Gram Panchayat was also called within 90 days. The petitioner convened the meetings of the Panchayat on 11-6-81, 9-7-81, 5-8-81 22-9-81 & 15-11-81 but he did not convenethe meetings thereafter as the affairs of his personal business compelled him to be absent from his home and village for a prolonged period of one month or forty days. The petitioner explains that UpaSarpanch of the village had undergone heart surgery in the 1st week of January 1982 and hence the Upa-Sarpanch could not be in the village in January and thereafter. That in view of the fact that he would be absent from his village in connection with the affairs of his business, he authorised. by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Sec. 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. Sri Pala Narsimha Reddy one of the members of the Gram Panchayat to perform and exercise the functions of the Sarpanch, that in effect the petitioner delegated his powers and functions to him under Sec. 35 and after so delegating the functions, he left the village to attend to the affairs of his business in mangoes. The petitioner aiso communicated to the Extension Officer (Panchayats) Kallur Panchayat and the Divisional Panchayat Officer Khammam about his delegating his powers and functions to Sri Pals Narasimha Reddy under certificate of posting. He returned home in the early hours of 1-3-82 after an absence of one month and fifteen days. That day Sri P Narasimha Reddy was not available in the village. When he enquired from the other members of the Gram Panchayat, he was informed that after he had left the village, no meeting of the Gram Panchayat had been convened. Then he issued notices to the members of the Gram Panchayat stating that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat would be convened on 5-3-82. On 1 -3-82 the Divisional Panchayat Officer visited the village in the evening. He sent for the petitioner and enquired whether he had convened the Gram Panchayat meeting within 90 days of the previous meeting which was held on 15-11-81. Then the petitioner informed him orally of the fact that he was away from the village for a period of one month and fifteen days and that he had returned only in the early hours of the morning of that day. He also told the Divisional Panchayat Officer that he had delegated to Sri P Narsimha Reddy his functions and powers as Sarpanch, and the same was Communicated to SriPNarsimha Keddy and the Divisional Panchayat Officer and enquired him (D P O) whether he was in receipt of the communication from the petitioner of the same and the D P 0 acknowledged that fact that he was in receipt of such communication from him. But the Divisional Panchayat Officer asked him to hand over the cash book, the minutes book, the agenda book and the cheque book and also the attendance register The petitioner handed over the agenda book cheque book and theattendance register. He told him that as far as the Minutes Book is concerned no such book was given to him by the out going President and that the meetings were being concerned on white papers and they were being maintained in a file folder. The Divisional Panchayat Officer took those papers which were kept in a file folder bearing witness to the fact that meetings of the Gram Panchayat were convened on 11-6-81, 9-7-81 5-8-81, 22-8-81 & 15-11-81. The Divisional Panchayat Officer wrote with his own hand to the effect that he could not hold the meeting of the Gram Panchayat within 90 days due to the affairs of his business, and asked the petitioner to put his signature to the statement. When the petitioner enquired him, that he had not mentioner in the statement the fact that he had received communication from him informing him that the petitioner had delegated his powers and functions in the absence of the petitioner from the village to Mr Narasimha Reddi, the Divisional Panchayat Officer informed him that it was not necessary for him to mention that fact in the statement. He also contends that the Divisional Panchayat Officer was inimically disposed towards him eversince he was elected as Sarpanch and he has been supposing the faction led by Mr. Challa Satyanarayana Reddy, who was at loger - heads with the petitioner. He also contends that he cannot be penalised for the lapse of a person to whom he had delegated his functions. He also contends that subsection (3) of Sec. 25 of the Gram Panchayats Act tes that where the Sarpanch or the person in concerned disputes the correctness of such cessation, the executive authority shall at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner may within a period of two months from the date on whiah the intimation is given, apply, to the District Munsif having jurisdiction ovar the area in which the office of the gram panchayat is situated for decision and his decision thereon shall be final. He further contends that the collector of the District, who is the Commissioner, may or may not apply to the District Munsif. Under these circumstances he felt that the only remedy left to him is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner therefore seeles for a declaration that tub-sec. (2) and (3) of Sec. 25 of A P Gram Panchayat Act of 1964 as illegal and quash the order passed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer.

(2.) In the counter the respondent denied all the allegations made by the petitioner.

(3.) Sri V. T, M Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner explained the circumstances, which prevented him from convening the meeting and that the petitioner is not negligent especially when he converted the meeting every month up to 15-11-82 which is the last meeting. He also contends that the petitioner made delegation of his powers and functions in favour of the members of the panchayat and communicated the same through certificate of postings to P Narasimha Reddy and also to the Divisional Panchayat Officer and the Panchayat Extension Officer and produced the postal certificates to prove this fact. He further contends that if the delegation is found to be true then the petitioner is absolved of the liability and he cannot be penalised for the failure on the part of Sri P, Narasimha Reddy to convene the meeting.