This writ petition, filed in 2014 by a former Sarpanch regarding an order to stop Gram Panchayat construction, was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner no longer held office and thus had no standing, and refused interim relief as the underlying action was procedurally flawed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
W.P.No.25607 of 2005
Between:
R. Satyanarayana
PETITIONER
AND
1. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, and others.
RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the proceedings in R.C.No.91/2005, dated 8.09.2005 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO), Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the 4th respondent herein. By virtue of the said proceedings the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to stop the proposed construction of Gram Panchayat building.
2. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioner he is the Ex-Sarpanch of Tamtadi Gram Panchayat and the said Gram Panchayat consists of hamlets, viz., Rajannapalem, Dasaripalem, Angavanipalem, Yatapalem, Vadapalem. The said Gram Pancyhayat was divided into 10 wards, and Rajannapalem, Dasaripalem, Angavanipalem, Yatapalem, vadapalem and Tamtadi have 4, 1, 1, 1, 1 & 2 wards respectively. Rajannapalem is bigger than other places and the Gram Panchayat office is being run in a rented premises at Rajannapalem. In the year 2002 the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in P.R.No.7/2002, dated 15.06.2002 for shifting of Gram Panchayat office to cyclone centre constructed by the Government. Subsequently the Gram Panchayat passed another resolution on 25.12.2002, resolving to construct permanent building at Rajannapalem with the 11th finance grant and N.G.R.Y grant and identified the land in Sy.No.47 intended to be donated by Sri Rajanna Sriramamurthy, Ramakrishna and others free of cost. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat
made a request to the 4th respondent-MPDO to direct the Mandal Executive Engineer to estimate the cost of the building and to accord sanction plan for construction of Gram Panchayat building at Rajannapalem. Subsequently, basing on a petition dated 13.07.2004 submitted by certain villagers of Tamtadi, saying that the Gram Panchayat building should be located at Tamtadi, the 4th respondent issued a notice bearing No.112/2004/EORD, dated 16.07.2004, directing the Gram Panchayat to stop the proposals for construction of building. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat convened a meeting and took a decision vide P.R.No.21/2004, dated 19.07.2004, expressing its opinion to continue the Gram Panchayat Office at Cyclone Shelter and to construct permanent building at Rajannapalem. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer issued urgent Memo dated 7.08.2004, directing to conduct the activities of the Gram Panchayat from Tamptadi village, and the Gram Panchayat replied to the same on 16.08.2004, referring to the earlier resolutions. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat passed another resolution in P.R.No.30/2005, dated 5.07.2005, reiterating its earlier stand and requested the 4th respondent-MPDO to release the funds. The Deputy Executive Engineer (Panchayat Raj), Yellamanchili prepared the estimate on 8.08.2005. Thereafter, the 4th respondent-MPDO vide proceedings Rc.No.91/2005/S, dated 8.09.2005 directed the Gram Panchayat to stop construction of building at Rajannapalem, as per the earlier instructions of the 3rd respondent-Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 3.09.2005.
4. Assailing the said proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 8.09.2005 as being illegal, untenable and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994, (for brevity ‘the Act’) the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. This Court on 01.12.2005 issued Rule Nisi. Responding to
the Rule Nisi issued, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
6. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
a) The impugned order passed by the 4th respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and opposed to the Act.
b) Section 246 of the Act authorises only the Government to meddle with the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat and neither the District Collector nor the MPDO has power to do so.
c) Since the resolution of the Gram Panchayat is still in force, the respondents cannot restrain the petitioner from constructing the building at Rajannapalem.
7. Submissions and contentions of the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent:
a) The action of the petitioner is unauthorised and he has no right to divert the SGRY and 11th Finance funds.
b) The resolution said to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat is neither valid nor binding on the respondents.
c) In the absence of approval granted by the District Collector under G.O.Ms.No.227, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and relief (Panchayats-II) Department, dated 13.04.1995, the action of the petitioner is impermissible.
d) The petitioner continued as Sarpanch till 2006 and there after another person got elected as Sarpanch, and as such, the present writ petition does not survive.
8. The principal contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that as per Section 246 of the Act, the respondents have no
jurisdiction nor power to restrain the Gram Panchayat from proceeding as per the resolution and only the Government has the power to meddle with the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. Section 246 stipulates that the Government may either suo motu or on a reference made to them by the Executive Officer or Mandal Parishad Development Officer or as the case may be, the Chief Executive Officer, in the manner prescribed by order in writing cancel any resolution passed by a Gram Panchayat Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad or any standing committee of a Zilla Parishad if in their opinion such resolution,
(a) is not legally passed or
(b) is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by of under this Act, or any other law or
(c) on its execution is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety or is likely to lead to a riot or affray.
9. It is the case of the respondents that without getting approval from the District Collector as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.227, dated 13.04.1995 it would not be open for the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the Gram Panchayat Office at Rajannapalem. The said aspect is not disputed by the petitioner and for this no plausible explanation is also forthcoming from the petitioner. The person, who complains of violation of law and who points out infirmity in the actions of the authorities, is equally obligated to adhere to the law. It is settled and well established principle of law that quashing of one illegal action should not result in reviving another illegal action. In these circumstances, even assuming that the impugned action is unauthorised and without jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Another significant aspect, which needs mention at this juncture is that the petitioner is no longer the Sarpanch and his term came to an end in the year 2006 and he filed the present writ petition in the individual capacity stating that he was the Sarpanch of the Gram
Panchayat. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is neither persuaded nor inclined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
7th October, 2014 Js. 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives given that the petitioner was no longer the Sarpanch when the petition was filed in 2014.
Whether the Court should exercise equitable jurisdiction to grant relief when the underlying action complained of was unauthorized due to lack of Government approval.
Whether respondents had jurisdiction to restrain Gram Panchayat construction under Section 246 when they themselves acted without necessary approvals.
R. Satyanarayana
The District Collector, Visakhapatnam
The District Panchayat Officer
A. Sivasankara Reddy
The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Atchuthapuram
A.V. SETHA SAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
