LAWS(APH)-1979-9-31

V. VENKATESWARLU Vs. D. PANAKALU AND TEN OTHERS

Decided On September 14, 1979
V. Venkateswarlu Appellant
V/S
D. Panakalu And Ten Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unhappy and equivocal drafting of the legislation has been on the mount, and is the main cause for increase in the avoidable litigation. The amended section 25(3) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, which is assailed in this cause, is one such instance.

(2.) The question to be answered in this writ appeal is, whether section 25(3) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, would exclude the revisory jurisdiction of the Government under section 232 of the Act.

(3.) The facts that are necessary to comprehend the case are: The appellant, who is the Sarpanch (who is the Sarpanch) of the Gram Panchayat, was intimated by the divisional Panchayat Officer on 11th May, 1979, that he ceased to be the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat under section 25(2) of the Act for having failed to convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat as required by the said sub-section. The appellant did not dispute the correctness of the cessation intimated before either the executive authority of the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner. Instead, he preferred a revision petition under section 232 before the Government which while entertaining the revision petition, passed an interim order on 5th June, 1979, keeping the aforesaid order of the Divisional Panchayat Officer in abeyance. Respondents 1 to 9, who were the members of the Gram Panchayat, applied to the Government for vacating the interim order on 20th June, 1979, and without awaiting the result, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on 20th May, 1979. Our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. on 8th August, 1979, having held, (i) that it is quite true that sub-section (3) of section 25 is not a remedy directly given to the Sarpanch, (ii) that sub-section (3) of section 25 provides for an intimation of the cessation and until the intimation of the cessation and until the intimation of the cessation is given, cessation is not operational, (iii) that the Gram Panchayat or the Commissioner as the case may be, after receiving the disputation from the Sarpanch, has to decide whether an application should be made to the District Munsif for decision; but if within two months, no application is made to the District Munsif, then the Sarpanch would be entitled to approach the Government by way of revision under section 232, and (iv) that without disputing the correctness of the cessation intimated to him, it would not be open to the Sarpanch to approach the Government under section 232; concluded that the Government has no power to entertain the revision under section 232 unless the sarpanch disputed the correctness of the cessation intimated to him in the manner prescribed by sub-section (3) of section 25 and unless the dispute raised by him was not referred to the district Munsif within two months. Hence, this writ appeal.