OM PRAKASH Vs. ASHU MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the two petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Kandra Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhanbad. Mr. S.C. Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Section 1 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the relevant" portion of which occurs in Sub-section (2) of Section 1 and runs to this effect:

(2.) Mr. K.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 7 and 8, on the other hand, contended that by notification of the year 1958 the defect, if any, was removed and the Gram Panchayat was duly constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 1 and 3 of the Act. In this connection he also referred to the counter affidavit which has been filed on their behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer, respondent No. 11. In my opinion, by reference to these counter affidavits and by reference to the notification mentioned above it would be difficult to decide whether the entire Notified Area Committee was excluded by the notification of the year 1958 or not.

(3.) Mr. Verma, however, challenged the application of the petitioners On the ground of delay. He referred to a series of Bench decisions of this Court. Out of them three are unreported, viz. Misc. Judicial Case No. 133 of 1961 (Pat) (Dineshwar Prasad Sharma V. State of Bihar) Misc. Judicial . Case 1340 of 1960 (Pat) (Promod Bihari Pd. Singh v. State of Bihar) and Misc. Judicial Case No. 228 of 1961 (Pat) (Suresh Pd Singh v. State of Bihar), all decided on 22-11-1961 by Ramaswami, C. J. and Untwalia, J. He also referred to a reported judgment in Brajlal Prasad V. State of Bihar (1966 BLJR 779) where Narasimham, C. J. and Anwar Ahmad, J. While dealing with the constitution of a Gram Panchayat by a notification made under Section 3 of the Act, dismissed the application of the petitioners mainly on the ground of delay. In all the three cases aforesaid the starting point for consideration of the delay was taken from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette. In the instant case the notification constituting the Kandra Gram Panchayat was published in the years 1955 and 1958 as mentioned above. In my opinion, this submission of Mr. Verma is well founded. On the ground of delay alone, this application has got to be dismissed.