Orissa High Court
Smt. Babita Negi And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 1 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 100(2005)CLT397, 2005(I)OLR662
Author: M.M. Das
Bench: M.M. Das
JUDGMENT M.M. Das, J.
1. The petitioners, in this writ application, are the villagers of village Charpalli under Charpalli Grama. Panchayat in the district of Bargarh. They challenge the Notification dated 26.3.2003 issued by the Government of Orissa in its Panchayat Raj (G.P.) Department annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4 under which the Government has fixed the headquarters of Charpalli Grama Panchayat at village Lambarjuna by exercising the power under Section 4(3) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thirty-six new Grama Panchayats were constituted in the district of Bargarh in the year, 2001. On the representation of various villagers, the Government bifurcated the existing Kansingha Grama Panchayat by creating a new Grama Panchayat named as Charpalli Grama Panchayat consisting of ten villages. After creation of the said new Grama Panchayat, taking into consideration the suggestions of the inhabitants of Grama, population of different villages of the said Grama Panchayat, geographical location and connectivity to other villages, the headquarters of the Grama Panchayat was decided to be located in village Charpalli. It is further submitted by him that three of the villagers donated their private lands by transferring the same in the name of the Block Development Officer, Padampur under registered sale deeds for construction of the headquarters building of the Grama Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the villagers of Lambarjuna village filed W.P. (C) No. 5538 of 2002 praying for fixation of the headquarters of the Grama Panchayat in their village. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioners therein to approach the State Government by making a representation. The representation made by those petitioners to the Government, on being considered, was rejected by the Government by its order dated 18.2.2003 directing that the headquarters of Charpalli Grama Panchayat will continue at Charpalli. Mr. Sarangi, submitted that even though there was absolutely no reason on the part of the Government to take a contrary decision, but suddenly on 26.3.2003 a Notification under Annexure-4 was issued directing refixation of the headquarters at Lambarjuna. He further contended that the said Notification clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the Government and solely based on a resolution of the Grama Panchayat dated 30.5.2002 and is clearly contrary to Section 4(3) of the Act. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bijaya Kumar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 2001 (I) OLR 168, 91 (2001) CLT 249 and Pedenti Malana and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 2004 (I) OLR 493, 97 (2004) CLT 607 in support of his contention that the impugned notification under Annexure-4 is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed.
3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the intervenors as well as the learned Addl. Government Advocate supporting the notification under Annexure-4 contended that under Section 4(3)of the Act, the Government can order fixing headquarters of Grama Sasan in any village within the said Grama Sasan. Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government "Advocate referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Harihar Swain and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 2003 (Supp.) OLR NOC 987, 96 (2003) CLT 454, vehemently contended that fixation of headquarters of a Grama Panchayat in any particular village being an administrative action, the same is not liable to be interfered with by exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. It is true that this Court should not interfere with the decision of the Government in an administrative matter like an appellate authority, while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, but nonetheless exercise of administrative power if found to be made beyond the limits of law and on irrelevant consideration or is an out- come of non-application of mind, this Court can while exercising plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quash the said order.
5. Considering the facts in the case of Harihar Swain (supra) we find that in the fact situation of the said case, this Court finding that the decision of the Government has been rightly taken, did not interfere with the same and dismissed the writ petition. The facts in the present case, however, are different. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that while reconstituting Grama Panchayats in the district of Bargarh, Charpalli Grama Panchayat was newly constituted and the Government took a decision in accordance with Section 4(3) of the Act to fix the headquarters of the said Grama Panchayat at village Charpalli. It is also candidly stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 5538 of 2002, after considering the representation made by the petitioners in the said writ petition, the Government rejected the said representation and directed that the headquarters of Charpalli Grama Panchayat will continue at Charpalli. As a matter of fact, the said order of the Government has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3.
6. In view of the above, on a bare reading of the impugned Notification under Annexure-4, it is revealed that there was no reason for the Government to take a different decision for fixing the headquarters of Charpalli Grama Panchayat at village Lambarjuna accepting the resolution of the Grama Panchayat. No material was placed before this Court in support of the conclusion as arrived in the impugned notification that the headquarters of Charpalli Grama Panchayat should be shifted to village Labbarjuna for administrative convenience, geographical location and infrastructure facilities. It has been categorically held by this Court in the case of Bijaya Kumar Behera and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any mode or guideline with regard to fixing the headquarters of a Grama Panchayat, does not vest unfettered power on the Government to take a decision, which is not based on reasons. It has also been held that the resolution of the Grama Panchayat depends upon the change of political scenario and the power of changing the headquarters of a Grama Panchayat vests in the Government and not in the Grama Panchayat. Thus, the resolution of the Grama Panchayat cannot form the basis for the decision of the Government to change the headquarters of a Grama Panchayat. As a matter of fact, in the impugned Notification under Annexure-4 it has also been clearly stated that the population of Charpalli village is more than the population of village Lambarjuna.
7. Considering the facts of the present case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the law on the point as it stands, we find that the Notification under Annexure-4 is not sustainable being contrary to the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the said Notification dated 26.3.2003 (Annexure-4) and order accordingly.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.
8. I agree.