PEDENTI MALANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second Writ application filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging fixation of headquarters of Karlakona Grama Panchayat. By Notification dated 20-1-2001, Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. Government of Orissa in the Panchayati Raj (G.P.) Department in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 149 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') constituted a Grama in the name of Karlakona. The said Grama consisted of four villages, namely, Karlakona, Kurumpeta, Gaduaguda and Anguru. In consonance with sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, village Karlakona was declared as the official headquarters of the Grama Sasan. The said act was challenged by the petitioners and some others before this Court in OJC No. 15713 of 2001. The said Writ Application was disposed of along with several other connected Writ Applications on 10-12-2001. This Court observed :

(2.) In consonance with the direction issued by this Court, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Panchayati Raj (G.P.) Department by order dated 1-2-2002 disposed of the representation filed by the petitioners and others holding that on examination of records, the District Re-organisation Committee constituted with the Collector as the Chairman, M.L.A., Tahasildar,B.D.O. and D.P.O. as Members, had considered the proposal of re-organisation of Grama Panchayats in Rayagada district and they had recommended for creation of Karlakona Grama Panchayat and that Government accepted the said recommendation. In consonance with the direction of this Court, the Collector, Rayagada was called upon to give his opinion about the demand of the villagers of Kurumpeta to fix headquarters of the Grama Panchayat at Kurumpeta instead of Karlakona and the Collector reported that there was no justification for change of headquarters from Karlakona to Kurumpeta. The Commis-sioner-cum-Secretary also held that at that stage change of the Grama Panchayat would dislocate the election process and accordingly dismissed the representation. The said order of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Mr. A. K. Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the decisions of this Court reported in (1992) 73 CLT 692, Pramod Kumar Bohidar v. State of Orissa and AIR 2001 Orissa 164, Bijay Kumar Behera v. State of Orissa forcefully submitted that there being no guidelines for fixation of headquarters, the authority concerned ought to have disposed of the representation of the petitioners in consonance with the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court.