MOODE LAKSHMA NAIK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court issued Rule Nisi and called for records on 14-7-2006. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had taken notice and requested time to get instructions in the matter. Thus, as per the directions of this Court, the matter is appearing in the Motion List today.

(2.) Sri Subramanyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that the impugned action, virtually is a suo motu action by the Government and such suo motu action relating to amalgamation is impermissible and the learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms. No.232, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, dated 18-4-1995. The learned Senior Counsel also would submit on the aspect of the power to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel would maintain that even if otherwise, prima facie, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the impugned action is invalid, there is no point in permitting the elections to be further proceeded with, since it would be a wasteful expenditure. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Article 329 of the Constitution of India, which had been there originally in the Constitution of India and how subsequent thereto the 73rd and 74th Amendment had been introduced for the purpose of giving better status to the local bodies. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that these elections may have to be treated slightly on a different footing. The learned Senior Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh and others, (2005) 8 SCC 383, wherein it was held that Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India mandates that all elections disputes to be determined only by way of Election Petition, but this by itself may not per se bar judicial review, which is the basic structure of the Constitution, but ordinarily such jurisdiction would not be exercised. However, there may be some cases where a writ petition would be entertained but in this case, the Court was not concerned with the said question. In the light of the said decision, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that inasmuch as now a stand is being taken by virtue of certain resolutions passed by the Special Officer, the amalgamation had been effected, even if the said contention to be accepted, it is clear that there is no elected body during the period and the view of the general public could not be ascertained and hence, such action would be bad. The learned Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, decided, no doubt, under Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act 1964, in a similar situation in Tirumalchetty Kotaiah etc v. District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Guntur, 1968 (1) An.WR 155. The learned Senior Counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision in State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti and others, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 305.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 6 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that twice in an year meetings are to be held and in the absence of an elected body, the Special Officer will convene the meeting and there has been no elected body in relation to these panchayats from the year 1995. In view of the same, the Special Officer, Gram Panchayat alone had been discharging the duties and in pursuance thereto resolutions were sent, and in pursuance of the resolutions, a decision had been taken hence, it cannot be said it is a suo motu decision on the part of the Government. The learned Counsel also, in relation to the Z.P.T.C. and M.P.T.C. elections, had pointed out that care had been taken to see that the reservation or other aspects are left un-affected and hence, the mere fact that these panchayats were referred to during those elections, would not alter the situation in anyway. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms. No.367 dated 20-8-1998 and would point out to Rule-5 and would maintain that inasmuch as in the absence of elected body the Executive Officer concerned being the competent person to convene the meetings, the resolution sent are in accordance with law and inasmuch as this is not a suo motu action, the guidelines or instructions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are not applicable to the facts of the case. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel would contend that inasmuch as the notification already had been issued, this Court normally not to disturb the process of the election at this stage and hence, it is not a fit case to grant any interim order, whatsoever. Further, the learned Counsel would contend that in the event of this Court interfering with the conduct of elections at this stage, the whole Mandal would be affected ar ,1 hence, prima facie case also to be considered. It is also stated that the care had been taken even in relation to reservations and hence, the amalgamation made is in order and the same need not be disturbed at this stage.