Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gram Panchayat Arthuna vs State & Ors on 7 September, 2016
Bench: Navin Sinha, Pankaj Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 678/2016
APPELLANTS:
Gram Panchayat Arthuna, Panchayat Samiti Arthuna,
Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara through its Sarpanch,
Dhularam Kharade S/o Shri Ramuji Kharade, aged 55
years, r/o Village Arthuna, Tehsil Garhi, District
Banswara.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
1.The State of Rajasthan through its Principal
Secretary, Department of Revenue Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.The District Collector, Banswara.
4.The Sub Divisional Officer, Garhi, District, Banswara.
5. The Panchayat Samiti, Arthuna, through its Block
Development Officer.
Date of order ::::: 07.9.2016
ORDER
PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Yeshpal Khileree, for the appellant. 2
The present appeal arises from the order dated 08.7.2016 dismissing the SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6695/2015.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought to persuade us that the new location of the Panchayat Samiti Bhawan was contrary to that decided by the Gram Panchayat earlier.
We have no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the location of the Panchayat Samiti Bhawan could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution in absence of any plea for violation of any statutory provision, Government instruction or circular. Nonetheless, if the appellant has any perceived grievances, nothing prevents it from approaching the concerned respondents, who are expected to consider the same in accordance with law.
That location of matters cannot be directed by the Court and remains in the realm of administrative discretion was noticed J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 observing as follows:-
"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the 3 Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub- section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place `X' rather than place `Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners".
The appeal is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. (NAVIN SINHA), CJ. nd.