SURAT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are members of the Gram Sabha, Mandhol, Tehsil Jubbal formerly in the district of Mahasu and now in the district of Simla. The Gram Panchayat, Mandhol was established in 1954. The petitioners say that the inhabitants of the area constitute a compact community with common interests expressed in social gatherings, common fairs and a common deity. It is also alleged that they have common grazing rights and lands within the local limits of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) IN Civil Writ Petition No. 93 of 1972 the petitioners plead that because they constituted a compact community there should be no division of the community by the splitting up of the Gram Sabha into independent Gram Sabhas. It was apparently apprehended that the State Government was proceeding to do so. The inhabitants of the Sabha area represented against that move of the Government, but apparently to no avail. The Government replaced the existing Gram Sabha by three new Gram Sabhas, those of Mandhol, Nakrari and Kot. Aggrieved by this action of the Government the petitioners then filed this Writ petition, challenging the validity of the action of the Government. The respondents filed a return to the writ petition, to which they annexed a copy of a resolution purporting to be one passed by the inhabitants of the area in which it was suggested that the Gram Sabha should be partitioned along certain lines. When the writ petition came on for hearing learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the copy of the resolution of the Gram Sabha annexed to the return and stated that if the manner of partition indicated in that resolution was adopted by the State Government the petitioners would have no grievance left. Having made that statement, learned counsel for the petitioners withdrew the writ petition. It appears, however, that the State Government maintained the three new Gram Sabhas created by it and to the disappointment of the petitioners did not re-constitute the Gram Sabhas along the lines suggested in the copy of the resolution annexed to the aforesaid return. In the belief that when learned counsel for the petitioners had made the statement mentioned above and the learned Advocate General had not made any contrary statement or submission at that stage the State Government should be taken to have accepted the position indicated by learned counsel for the petitioners and to have given the assurance that the Gram Sabha would be divided along the lines suggested in the copy of the resolution annexed to the return, the petitioners now filed a miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 19 of 1973) alleging that the State Government had gone back upon the position taken by it when the writ petition was withdrawn and that, therefore, this Court should recall its order dismissing the writ petition and restore the case for decision on the merits. The miscellaneous petition has been opposed by the Stale Government, whiten has taken the stand that the learned Advocate General did not extend any assurance either expressly or by conduct that the Gram Sabha would be divided along the lines suggested in the copy of the resolution annexed to the return and, therefore, no question arose of reviving the writ petition.

(3.) SO far as Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 19 of 1973 is concerned, it does appear that during the hearing of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioners was carried away by the impression that by annexing the copy of the resolution to its return the State Government was proposing to divide the Gram Sabha in the manner suggested in that resolution. The fact that learned counsel was under that impression is borne out by the order recorded by the Court on September 18, 1972 disposing of that writ petition:-