Disposed

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, v. The Panchayat Development Officer

Telangana HC2 Jul 2009WP/27950/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with the Chodapalli Gram Panchayat's market activities in specific survey numbers within its limits, noting that no counter was filed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents not to interfere with the Chodapalli Gram Panchayat's conducting of market in S.Nos. 71 and 72 without following due process of law.

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27950 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, Sri Ch.Ramana, S/o.Chinnodu, Hindu

¶8

R/o.Chodapalli Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶9

2 Ch.Ramana, S/o.Chinnod,

¶10

R/o.Chodapalli Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. R/o.Chodapalli, Chodapalli Grampanchayat,

¶11

Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

3 P.Appa Rao, S/o.Gangulu,

¶13

R/o.Chodapalli Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. R/o.Chodapalli, Chodapalli Grampanchayat, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Panchayat Development Officer, Atchuthapuram, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

2 Mandal Parishad Development Officer Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶18

3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶19

4 The Station House Officer, Atchutapuram P.S., Visakhapatnam District.

¶20

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one under writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings bearing Rc. No.2/2005 (PR and RD) Department, dt.26.7.2005, as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution of India and mandatory provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and the rules framed there under on the subject directing the respondent not to interfere with the activity of the first petitioner in conducting the market in S.No.71 of Chodapalli Village of Atchuthapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam District or in any other public place within the limits of the Gram-Panchayat.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶24

The Court made the following :

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶26

W.P. No. 27950 of 2005

¶27

O R D E R:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing R.C. No.2/2005 (PR & RD) Department dated 26.7.2005 issued by the Office of 2^nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the activity of the 1^st petitioner in conducting the market in S.No. 71 of Chodapalli village, Actchuthapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam District.

¶29

1^st petitioner is the Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch and 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the 1^st petitioner – Gram Panchayat, respectively. They have filed the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Extension Officer, Mandal Parishad, Atchutapuram, dated 26.7.2005 wherein it is stated that without permission from the concerned Officers the 1^st petitioner-Gram-Panchayat conducted weekly market on Friday i.e. 22.7.2005 in S.Nos. 71 and 72. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat was directed to stop conducting market either in the above survey numbers or within the limits of Gram Panchayat and that if those orders are violated, action will be taken according to law.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner –Gram Pancshayat is functioning under the provisions of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act which came into force with effect from 30.4.1974 by virtue

¶31

of 73^rd Amendment to the Constitution of India which intends to strength and revitalize the Panchayat system so that they can sub-serve the teeming millions that live in the rural area and Article 243(D) of the Constitution of India defines the Panchayat as an Institution of selfgovernance. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they have conducted weekly market on Friday i.e. 22.7.2005 in S.Nos. 71 and 72, the impugned notice was given. According to the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat being an authority and a self-governance body is entitled to conduct market in any public place. Though no permission is required, in fact the 1^st petitioner – Gram Panchayat has passed resolution on 16.7.2005 and submitted the same to the higher authorities requesting permission to conduct daily market, but no action is taken by the authorities concerned till date.

¶32

No counter is filed and none appears for the respondents. Generally speaking, a Panchayat, as a self-governing Institution, is entitled to conduct market within the Gram-Panchayat limits and it is not required to take permission from any authority except the hierarchy in the Panchayat system, if necessary. In this case, it appears, though no such permission is required, the 1^st petitioner-Gram Panchayat has made a representation on 16.7.2005 seeking permission to conduct daily market in S.Nos. 71 and 72 of the Gram Panchayat Area, but no decision is yet taken by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere into conducting of market by the 1^st petitioner-Gram Panchayat in S.Nos. 71 and 72 of Chodapally village of Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law. No order as to costs.

¶34

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-7-2009. MVB.

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, v. The Panchayat Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chodapalli Gram Panchayat, rep by its Sarpanch, v. The Panchayat Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polgani Rama Mohana Rao, Vs the Distirict Collecter

M. Pratap Reddy Vs The District of Mines and Geology

Pudari Shanker, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B.Rajeswara Rao, Vs a.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

G.Sreenivasulu Raghavaiah Vs The Special Collector

Khader Hussain Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer