THAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present reference has arisen in a different factual matrix inasmuch as certain provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act') that were incorporated by way of amendment into the aforesaid statute faced assail pertaining to their constitutional validity in the case of Jankidas Bairaghi v. State of M. P., (2001) 2 MPHT 227 wherein a Division Bench declared the provisions under attack as constitutionally valid and dismissed the writ petition in limine, and thereafter when the present writ petition was filed challenging the enactment the same Division Bench issued notice and when the matter was placed for final hearing the Bench hearing the matter recorded a finding that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had a sanguine grievance with regard to a singular provision and had no cavil in respect of any other provision and accordingly thought it condign to recommend the matter to be referred to a larger Bench and resultantly, the matter has been placed before us for adjudication in respect of the question which is as under : "Whether the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Panchayat (Amendment) Act 2001 is constitutionally valid. ?"

(2.) To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective it is seemly to state that Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001 was enacted by the State Legislature and received assent of the Governor on 21-1-2001 and published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) on 22-1-2001. The constitutional validity of the said enactment was challenged in the case of Jankidas Bairaghi (supra) which was decided by a Division Bench on 22-3-2001. After referring to certain provisions of the Act the Division Bench in paragraphs 5 to 7 expressed the view as under : 5. The contentions that these provisions clash with powers, functions and responsibilities of the Gram Panchayat, are, therefore, unsustainable. Both the institutions aim at serving the people under their jurisdiction, which is not possible without an entrustment of functions, facilities and funds. The statutory provisions enumerated above, look after this requirement, they do not destroy the existence and utility of Gram Panchayat which performs distinct functions kept apart by Section 49 of the Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001 and Section 49-A of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Therefore, apprehensions that Gram Panchayat would be denuded of its responsibility and utility, have no basis and are liable to be rejected. 6. Proper reading of various provisions of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 and Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001, would clearly demonstrate that challenges against the validity of some of sections raised by the petitioners have no substance. Since Gram Sabhas at the village level are being constituted for the first time, some of the functions at village level are going to be performed by it. There is a feeling of alienation and apprehension as to the role by Gram Panchayat, but look at the real substance of the functions, would make it clear that they are constituted for discharging well defined functions in different areas. The contention that since the Gram Sabha comprised of none elected persons, therefore, it would not be fit to operate the funds placed at its disposal whereas Gram Panchayat has elected members, therefore, elected persons would be fit to handle fund cannot be accepted. Neither there is presumption that only elected persons are fit to manage financial matters nor it can be so said so. Gram Sabha has separate funds like Gram Panchayat. From the statement of objects and reasons, it is crystal clear that object for constituting Gram Sabha is to enable people at the village level to participate in development of the village with respect to matters of their concern and interest and with a view to discharge them, the Gram Kosh has been established and power to augment financial resources conferred. Separate functions and powers have been vested in Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. 7. What emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is that challenges raised by the petitioners against the provisions of Panchayat (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2001, do not rest on sound footing, therefore, they are liable to be rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in limine.

(3.) As has been indicated earlier the Division Bench after noting the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties considered it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench only for the purpose of testing the constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act.