Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ghanta Prasada Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No. 3337 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed, aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the notification under Section 3(2)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994) canceling the notification in which the Chintalapudi and other five villages are declared as Gram panchayats/Villages with immediate effect in order to enable their merger into the limits of Ponnur Municipality in Guntur District by the fourth respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020 and the consequential notification issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.81 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Department dated 28.01.2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (inclusion or exclusion of areas into/from the jurisdiction of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules 2015 issued in G.O.Ms.No.114 MA & UD dated 05.05.2015, the Government of Andhra Pradesh altered the limits of Ponnur Municipality by including 6 villages including Chintalapudi Village of Guntur with immediate effect, since all those orders are contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 243 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners are residents of Chintalapudi Vilage, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District with agricultural background. The 7th cum 8th respondents conducted Gram Sabha on 03.09.2019 in the office of the 7th respondent to collect the views of the members of the Gram Sabha with regard to the merger of Gram Panchayat into Ponnur MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 2 Municipality. In the Gram Sabha, it was decided unanimously refusing to merger of Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality. In the Gram Sabha, it was decided unanimously refusing merger of the Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality.
In the Resolution dated 03.09.2019, it was stated that, since the Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat is within 2 kms and there is possibility of development, resolution was passed accepting the merger of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality. Even though there is no such resolution, passed in fact, the 8th respondent contrary to the facts and rules sent the above resolution with a malafide intention.
It is contended that the 7th and 8th respondent have no power or competence to conduct Gram Sabha as per law the laid down by this Court and on this ground also, the Gram Sabha held by the 7th and 8th respondent and the report sent to the authorities is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
Based on such illegal jurisdiction exercised by the seventh respondent, further process, on illegal recommendation was started, the process of merger was completed on top priority and the fourth respondent issued a notification as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act vide G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020, de-notifying Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat and five other Gram Panchayats with immediate effect, in order to enable their merger into the limits of Ponnur Municipality in Guntur District. It is pertinent to note that within no time, even without notifying the cancellation order in official gazette, the first respondent with over enthusiasm to exhibit his ability to higher authorities, issued G.O.Ms.No.81 Municipal MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 3 Administration & Urban Development (G) Department dated 28.01.2020, issuing notification, under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, altering the limits of Ponnur Municipality by including six Gram Panchayats, including Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat.
On the same day, the second respondent vide Proceedings Roc.No.3232265/2019D-1 dated 28.01.2020 issued notification declaring the number to be elected as members to the Ponnur Municipality as 36 after merger of 6 Gram Panchayats. Later, the 9th respondent vide Roc.No.1/2019-D dated 31.01.020 directed the 2nd respondent to prepare the ward wise electoral rolls as per the schedule given by the State Election Commission. Aggrieved by all the above illegal acts of the respondents, the petitioners questioned those illegal acts and filed this present writ petition.
It is contended that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders, merging Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Articles 14 & 243 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, Article 243-Q(2) which clearly mandates that the Governor while notifying the area has to look into and having regard to the population of the area, the density of population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other facts as may deem fit and specify in public notification for the purpose of this part. The impugned notification issued by the respondents in the name of the Governor is not in consonance with Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India and hence the same is liable to be set-aside on this ground also.
MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 4 It is contended that the respondents passed the impugned orders contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Declaration/de-notification/constitution of Villages) Rules, 2007 and even without issuing any notice to the affected Gram Panchayat, as required under the above rules, passed the impugned orders which are liable to be declared as illegal. Conducting of Gram Sabha of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat by 7th /8th respondents (Special Officer) is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and on this ground also, the G.Os impugned in this writ petition are liable to be set-aside.
None of the respondents filed counter affidavit, but advanced argument.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Subba Rao Korrapati submitted that merger of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat based on the recommendation of Special Officer is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'The Act'), more particularly, Section 3(2)(f) of the Act, since the Special Officer is incompetent to discharge the duties of Sarpanch or Gram Panchayat, and placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Kurapati Bangariah and others v. Govt. of A.P1, Vaddepalli Narsimhulu and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh2 and Pallam Reddy Ananda Sudha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh3. It is further contended that, notification as required under G.O was passed contrary to Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, since no opportunity was afforded to the affected villagers by issue of such notification, on this 1 2015 (6) ALT 573 2 2014 (4) ALT 451 3 WP (PIL) No.246 of 2013 dated 26.03.2019 MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 5 ground also, the notification merging Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality is liable to be set-aside and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj contended that Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007 is applicable only for de-notification of panchayat to constitute a municipality or notified area under Section 389-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities, Act, 1965. According to Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, where a village declared under sub-section (1) of Section 3 or part thereof is proposed to be merged in a neighbouring Municipality or a Municipal Corporation or a Notified Area constituted under Section 389-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, and the residuary area is not , in the opinion of the Government, a viable unit for continuing as a Gram Panchayat. Therefore, Rule 12 has no application and on this ground alone, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Similarly, learned Government Pleader for Urban Development and Municipal Administration advanced identical argument with regard to alleged violation of Rule 12 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, while submitting that, entire election process is already started, though no notification was issued and requested to apply Article 243-ZG and dismiss the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the fourth respondent/Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department issued G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020, de-notifying Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat strictly MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 6 in compliance of Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007. If not, whether de-
notification of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat and consequently, merger into Ponnur Municipality is liable to be set-aside?
2. Whether Bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India is applicable to the present stage of election process. If so, whether writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the Court cannot interfere with the election process?
P O I N T No.1 It is an undisputed fact that Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat is a village panchayat and it was proposed to be merged in Ponnur Municipality/third respondent herein. In that process, Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat has to be de-notified so as to enable the authorities to merge the Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality/third respondent, a notification under Section 3(2)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994) is required to be issued. Such procedure is prescribed by A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007. Even according to Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India, certain guidelines are fixed for de-notifying village panchayat/gram panchayat to merge into Municipal Corporation. Therefore, to de-notify the gram panchayat to merge into municipality, the authorities have to take into consideration the following aspects:
(a) the population of the area
(b) the density of the population therein,
(c) the revenue generated for local administration,
(d) the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 7
(e) the economic importance or such other factors.
Rule 9 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, prescribed procedure for de-notification. Where it becomes necessary to take action under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, to exclude from a village any local area or include in village any local area or unite two or more villages or parts of villages or to alter the boundaries of any villages or to alter the name of any village in giving effect to these rules, the Government shall, before issuing a notification therefore, give the Gram Panchayat, which will be affected by the issue of such notification, an opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to indicate its decision within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and consider the objections, if any, of such Gram Panchayat.
Provided that where a Special Officer has been appointed to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Gram Panchayats and its Sarpanch and Executive Authority, such Special Officer shall be given the aforesaid opportunity and the Special Officer shall make his representation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice after taking into consideration the views expressed by the members of the Gram Sabha at a special meeting convened for the purpose.
Provided, further that if no reply to the show cause notice from the Gram Panchayat or the Special Officer is received within the period aforesaid, the Government shall pass such orders as deemed fit to give effect to the proposal.
Therefore, as per first proviso, Sarpanch or Executive Authority or even a Special Officer is entitled to make a representation within a MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 8 period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice after taking into consideration the views expressed by the members of the Gram Sabha at a special meeting convened for the purpose. Irrespective of the entitlement of the Special Officer to make such representations, the Special Officer is required to convene the Gram Sabha as defined under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows:
Gram Sabha:
(1) There shall come into existence a Gram Sabha for every village on the date of publication of notification under section 3. (2) A Gram Sabha shall consist of all persons whose names are included in the electoral roll for the Gram Panchayat referred to in section 4 and such persons shall be deemed to be the members of the Gram Sabha. (3) The Gram Sabha shall meet at least twice in every year on such date and at such place and time as may be prescribed to consider the following matters which shall be placed before it by the Gram Panchayat, namely:-
(i) annual statement of accounts and audit report;
(ii) report on the administration of the preceding year;
(iii) programme of works for the year or any new programme not covered by the budget or the annual programme;
(iv) proposals for fresh taxation or for enhancement of existing taxes;
(v) selection of schemes, beneficiaries and locations; and (vi) such other matter as may be prescribed. ]
The Gram Panchayat shall give due consideration to the suggestions, if any, of the Gram Sabha.
(4) The Gram Sabha shall observe such rules of procedure at its meetings as may be prescribed.
(5) Every meeting of the Gram Sabha within 10 days from the date prescribed under subsection (3) shall be convened and presided over by the Sarpanch or in his absence by the Upa Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
In the present facts of the case, the main grievance of this petitioners is that, Gram Sabha was held on 03.09.2019, for the proposed merger of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality, a resolution was passed, which is as follows:
'Resolution: The Village meeting was held as per the letter sent by the Commissioner, Ponnur Municipality vide letter in R.O.C.No.1541/2019/G1 dated 02.08.2019n regarding merging Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat in Ponnur Municipality. Invited for the opinions. In the villae meeting, Tamirchi Suresh Kumar and others have given application accepting to merge Chintalapudi Gram MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 9 Panchayat in Ponnur Municipality and Ghanta Prasada Rao and others have given application opposing the merging of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat in Ponnur Municipality.
A resolution was passed in the Gram Sabha agreeing to merge Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat in Ponnur Municipality as Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat is within 2 kms from Ponnuru Town and opportunities are there for development."
This resolution, if accepted, ex-facie, the recommendations made by the Special Officer is in consonance with the first proviso to Rule 9 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007.
One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Special Officer is incompetent to hold Gram Sabha, and express his opinion and make a recommendation after holding the Gram Sabha. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in Kurapati Bangariah and others v. Govt. of A.P (referred supra) and the same is reported by Division Bench of this Court in Vaddepalli Narsimulu and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh4 where the Court held as follows:
"Unlike the proviso to Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules, which enables a Special Officer to submit a representation only after taking into consideration the views expressed by the members of the Gram Sabha at a special meeting convened for the said purpose, Rule 12(2) of the 2007 Rules does not require either a special meeting of the Gram Sabha to be convened or for the views of the members expressed in the Gram Sabha to be taken into consideration, by the Special Officer before submitting his representation in reply to the show cause notice issued by the Government. As they have been appointed, to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the subject gram panchayats and its sarpanches, it is the Special Officers who are entitled to submit representations, on behalf of the gram panchayats, in reply to the show-cause notices issued by the Government, under Rule 12(2) of the 2007 Rules, proposing to cancel the notification issued earlier under Section 3(1) of the 1994 Act, in the exercise of its powers under Section 3(2)(f) thereof. In terms of the proviso to Rule 12(2), if no reply is submitted to the show-cause notice within a period of ten days from the date of its receipt, the Government is empowered to pass such orders as it deems fit. It is not even the petitioners case that the Special Officers of the concerned gram panchayats have objected to the merger of these eleven gram panchayats, and in constituting them as a Nagar Panchayat. While it would, undoubtedly, have been desirable for an elected gram panchayat to have expressed its views on whether or not the gram panchayats should be merged in order to constitute a Nagar Panchayat, the question, whether or not the Government should have waited for an elected body of the Gram Panchayat to be constituted 4 2014 (4) ALT 451 MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 10 before making the proposal to de-notify the Gram Panchayats and constitute them as Nagar panchayats, is not a matter for examination by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether and which gram panchayats should be denotified, merged and constituted as a Nagar Panchayat are again matters in the executive realm and it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to undertake the task of determining whether some other gram panchayats should have been denotified and constituted as Nagar Panchayats before the subject gram panchayats were so constituted. No statutory provision plenary or subordinate has been brought to the notice of this Court which requires the Government to issue a show- cause notice, under Rule 12(2) of the Rules, only to the elected body of a gram panchayat; and not to the Special Officers, appointed for such gram panchayats, in the place of the elected body. It is evident, therefore, that the requirement of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules has not been violated by the respondents in issuing the impugned notification, under Section 3(2)(f) of the 1994 Act, to cancel the notifications issued earlier constituting them as gram Panchayats so that they can, thereafter, be constituted as a Municipality (Nagar panchayat). The statutory provisions, either under the 1994 Act and the 2007 Rules or the 1965 Act and the 2013 Rules, have not been violated in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms. No.304 dated 29.06.2013 or G.O.Ms. No.300 dated 29.06.2013 respectively.' After making representation by the Sarpanch and Executive Authority or Special Officer, as required under Rule 9 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, a separate procedure is prescribed for de-notification. Rules 10 and 11 are not relevant for deciding this issue. But, Rule 12 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007, is relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy, which reads as follows:
12(1) It shall be competent for the Government to cancel a notification under Clause (f) of Sub-section 2 of Section 3, in the following circumstances namely:-
(i) where it is proposed to constitute a municipality or a notified area under Section 389-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, or a Municipal Corporation for a village or for group of villages or part thereof declared as village under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Act;
(ii) Where a village declared under sub-section 1 of Section 3 or part thereof is proposed to be merged in a neighbouring MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 11 municipality or a municipal corporation or a Notified Area constituted under Section 389-A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and the residuary area is not, in the opinion of the Government a viable unit for continuing as a Gram Panchayat;
(iii) Where the revenue village or part thereof declared as a village under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the said Act ceases to be a revenue village due to submersion or depopulation and the necessity for a gram panchayat ceases;
(iv) Where it is found in the actual working that the gram panchayat for the village declared under sub-section (1) of Section 3 cannot function efficiently as a viable unit of local self-government.
(2). The Government shall before issuing a notification under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, give to the Gram Panchayat, which will be effected by the issue of such notification, an opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to indicate its decision within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and consider the objections, if any, of such Gram Panchayat.
Provided that if no reply to the show cause notice from the Gram Panchayat is received within the period aforesaid, the Government shall pass such orders as deemed fit, to give effect to the proposal.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 mandates that a notification under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, shall be given to the Gram Panchayat before issuing and an opportunity of showing MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 12 cause against the proposal to indicate its decision within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice and consider the objections, if any, of such Gram Panchayat. Proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Section 12 deals with deemed consent if no reply is received to the show cause notice from the Gram Panchayat. But, no such opportunity was afforded, as mandated under Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007 is the main grievance of these petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department, whereunder the Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat and five other panchayats were de-notified from village panchayats, so as to enable the Government to merge into Ponnur Municipality. But, no show cause notice as required under Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007 was issued, affording an opportunity to the affected villagers bfore de-notification of villages i.e G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020. There is no such reference in G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E&R) Department dated 28.01.2020 about compliance of Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007. One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that, Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007 is applicable only for de-notification of part of the village and merger into municipality. But, this contention is without any merit. On reading Rule 12(1) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 13 Villages), Rules, 2007, is read, it would indicate that, even for de- notification of any gram panchayat and its merger into other village panchayat or municipality, a show cause notice granting ten days time is required to be given. Therefore, this contention of the respondents is hereby rejected. On this ground alone, the notification is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the point in answered. P O I N T No.2:
Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 deals with Constitution of Municipalities. According to Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, to include in or exclude from a Municipality, the local area or any portion thereof, certain procedure is prescribed i.e by issuing a notification. But, before issuing a notification under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, either to include within a municipality and a local area and part thereof, in the vicinity of such municipality or for excluding from the municipality or any area or portion thereof, certain procedure prescribed in the Act and Rules framed thereunder has to followed. As on date, the de-notification of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat is totally contrary to Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007. On this ground alone, the de-notification of Chintalapudi Gram Panchayat into Ponnur Municipality is liable to be set-aside.
One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that, when once election process is commenced, the Court shall not interfere with the process, in view of the Bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, as Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India has created an interdict on the power of the MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 14 High Court to interfere with the election process of Municipality , as the preparation of electoral rolls is a part of election process.
No doubt, there is a clear bar from interference with such process, is not a ground to deny the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the procedure followed by the respondents is illegal ex-facie. If the Court finds that the procedure followed by the administrative authorities is contrary to the statutory provisions or the procedure established by law, the Court can interfere with the administrative orders passed by the administrative authorities or quasi judicial authorities. "It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (vide "West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim5") The Courts interference with the delimitation process is barred in view of the interdict contained in Article 243-ZG. He also relied on the Judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.84 & 87 of 2019, dated 20.10.2019. He also relied on the Judgment in Anugrah Narain Singh vs. State of U.P6, in Lakshmi Charan Sen vs. A.K.M.Hassan Uzaman7 wherein, it is held that the Courts cannot interfere with the delimitation process. 5 2019 (9) SCALE 573 6 (1996) 6. SCC 303 7 AIR 1996 AP 37 MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 15 In Association of Residents of Mhow (Rom) and another Vs. Delimitation Commission of India and others8, it was held in Para Nos.23 to 26 of the Judgment, which dealt with delimitation of Constituencies under Section 9 (2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002.
Section 9 (2) of the Act mandates the Commission to publish its proposals for the delimitation of the constituencies in the manner provided thereunder and delimitation of parliamentary constituencies and assembly constituencies, as the case may be, shall be only after consideration of all the objections and suggestions which may have been received by the Commission before the specified date for which purposes the Commission may hold one or more public sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks fit. The Commission is not required to hold public meeting in each and every parliamentary constituency. In para-26 of the same Judgment, the Apex Court held that proposals cannot emanate from any interested person. The distinction between the Commission's proposals and the objections and suggestions in response to such proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal by the Commission. The Commission is not under any legal or constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals In the facts of the above judgment, the Commission finally determined the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh after considering all the objections and suggestions received by it before the specified date and got published its orders in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the 8 (2009) 5 SCC 404 MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 16 State as is required under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The orders so published puts them "in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself". Consequently that notification is to be treated as law and required to be given effect to. But the Commission did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner in the facts of the judgment. Though, the Commission is not under any legal obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals, still it is the obligation of the Commission to look into the objections, more particularly when notification for merger is questioned at the initial stage. In the above said judgment, the Apex Court found fault with the procedure, which the commission followed.
In the presents facts of the case, delimitation is irrelevant, since the very merger of Chintalapudi Grama Panchayat into Ponnur Muncipallity is in dispute, as, it is contrary to the procedure prescribed in law, as discussed above. That too before commencement of the election process, this Court already stayed further proceedings vide order dated 14.02.2020. Therefore, any steps taken for further proceeding will not come in the way to attract the Bar under Article 243-ZG of the constitution of India. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development is without any merit and therefore, the same is rejected.
In view of my foregoing discussion, de-notification of Chintalapudi Grama Panchayat, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District is totally contrary to Rule 12(2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats (Declaration of Villages), Rules, 2007 and on this ground alone, the MSM,J WP No.3337 of 2020 17 de-notification of Chintalapudi Grama Panchayat, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District is liable to be set-aside.
In the result, writ petition is allowed setting aside G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E & R) Department dated 28.01.2020 which is issued for de-notifying Chintalapudi Grama Panchayat and G.O.Ms.No.81 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Department dated 28.01.2020, issued for merging the same into the limits of Ponnur Municipality, Guntur District. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to merge Chintalapudi Grama Panchayat, into Ponnur Municipality.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:06.03.2020 sp