Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Chandra Shekhar vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 9 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD644, 2000(2)ALT575, AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 273, (2000) 2 ANDH LT 575
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a resident of Anjanapuram Gram Panchayat, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District. He is aggrieved by the procedure followed by the 3rd respondent namely Nodal Officer, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District in appointing Village Committees for Village Sanitation Project as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and for consequential direction to the respondents to follow the system of secret ballot for appointment of Village Committees and to set aside any Village Committee that is appointed for Anjanapuram Gram Panchayat.
2. The Central Government approved Village Sanitation Project for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The scheme envisages the appointment of committee consisting of an Executive Member, two women from Dwacra (Development of Women and Children in rural areas) group and two men from youth organisation. For implementation of the project, the beneficiaries have to pay 10% of the cost of the scheme and 90% of the cost will be released by the Government at different stages keeping in view the work done by the Village Committee. The Village Committee entrusted with the Sanitation Project will take up construction of toilets. The scheme projects a situation where the active participation of the beneficiaries of the Sanitation Scheme in the village is encouraged by involving them. For the purpose of instilling a feeling of participation, the works are entrusted to the representatives of the village constituted as Village Committees. The scheme itself says that the Village Committee has lot of importance for implementation of the Village Sanitation Programme and therefore Village Committees have to be constituted and appointed at the time of Grama Sabhas. The scheme contemplates the appointment of five members as noticed herein above and vesting the committee with the powers and functions of construction of toilets at (he time of meeting of the Grama Sabha. The grievance of the petitioner is that the method adopted by the Grama Sabha for appointment of Village Committee is by raising hands instead of secret ballot. This according to the petitioner is resulting in unfairness and undemocratic high handedness. To substantiate this, the petitioner submits that the meeting of the Grama Sabha was scheduled on 29-2-2000 and as there were threats by the powerful people, the meeting could not go on and therefore, the same was adjourned to 8-3-2000. On that day also the meeting could not take place. Therefore, the meeting is now scheduled to be held on 11-3-2000 for approving the appointment of the Village Committee.
3. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for brevity) says that there shall come into existence a Grama Sabha for every village on the date of publication of notification constituting the Gram Pancliayat. Subsection (3) of Section 6 postulates thai Grama Sabha shall meet twice in every year to consider inter alia the matters like the annual budget, the report of the administration proposals for taxation, selection of schemes, beneficiaries, locations and programmes for works to be implemented in the year and such other matters as may be prescribed (clause vi of sub-section (3) fo Section 6 of the Act). Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act also provides that the Gram Panchayat shall give due consideration to the suggestions, if any, of the Grama Sabha. The procedure for conducting the meetings is as prescribed by the Government by Rules. A plain reading of the functions of the Grama Sabha does not include approval of the Village Committee for Sanitation introduced by the Government for construction of toilets. No Rules are brought to the notice of the Court entrusting the functions of Grama Sabha by Rules of appointment of Village Committees or approval of Village Committees.
4. Be that as it may, the scheme says that at village level for implementation of the programme, the committee shall be appointed consisting of five members and the same shall be placed before the Grama Sabha. Therefore, it is for the Grama Sabha to adopt its own method and approve the Village Committee already appointed. The Grama Sabha does not by itself appoint the Village Sanitation Committee. Such power cannot be inferred from sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act.
5. Admittedly, the Grama Sabha would approve the Village Committee by raising hands. Election by raising hands is well-accepted method of democratic process adopted even in the highest legislative bodies as well as the international bodies like United Nations Organisation and its organs. There cannot be any arbitrariness by the method adopted for approving the Village Committee by raising hands. As long as the muscle men are kept at bay by the Nodal Officer, there cannot be any objection for the villagers of Grama Sabha to approve the Village Sanitation Committee by raising hands. Any other method, in my considered opinion, would be contrary to the very scheme itself, the object of which is noticed herein above. In every democratic method of functioning, the secret ballot is not only the way of practicing democracy.
6. For the above reasons, I do not see any reason to admit the writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.500/-.