GRAM PANCHAYAT, TARUAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned notification dated 26.08.2020 was issued under Section 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") to merge village Barota into Gram Sabha, Taruan. This impugned action of the respondents was objected to by Gram Sabha, Taruan and it passed resolution objecting for the impugned action of merging Barota into Gram Sabha Taruan. The petitioner submits that it had made objections on three occasions and the last objections by resolution was on 15.12.2019. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents without hearing and considering the resolution and objections, may issue election notification and thereafter they would become remedy less. Hence the present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to reconsider the proposal issued vide impugned notification dated 26.08.2020 before finalization of delimitation notification.

(2.) Learned Advocate General submits to dismiss this petition since it is not maintainable being premature one as there is no final delimitation notification having been issued for the purpose of Section 3(2) of the Act. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short, "the Rules"). When a notification is issued under Section 3(2) of the Act, the furtherance is covered under Chapter-11 of Delimitation of Constituencies of Panchayats under the Rules. As per this, when objections to the proposal are made under Rule 5 to the Deputy Commissioner, it is submitted that in case any notification under Section 3(2) of the Act is issued, then the aggrieved person can approach the Financial Commissioner under Section 148 of the Act or under Rule 143 of the Rules. This notification shall be issued under Rule 11 of the Rules. Once the notification is issued for delimitation, then it is open for the aggrieved party to approach the Competent Court. When Scheme of the Rule with regard to delimitation has been prescribed under the Rules, the delimitation has to be passed as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules and nothing else.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon para 52 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of HP. and others vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 305 to the effect that sufficient opportunity is to be provided to the people of the area concerned for raising objections. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that the opportunity will also provide an occasion for people to come forward with suggestions for better and more viable, compact and cohesive regrouping of the villages for efficient administration and economic development. In this background, it is submitted that if regrouping of the villages and determination of the panchayat area is undertaken, the authority will have to give sufficient opportunity to the people.