Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

contrivance which is unconstitutional. The learned Advocate General has submitted that if the notification can be supported by the P. R. Act it can never be said that they are unconstitutional until and unless the provision itself held to be ultra vires. The argument of the Advocate General is supported by the decision of this very Court and as such it cannot be said that issuing of notification would be unconstitutional. It would thus follow that the opinion of the Panchayats as or in the manner laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the P. R. Act, was not required to be elicited before including those panchayats within the limits of the corporation, and the notification (Annexure 1) is not in of violation of any provision of the P. R. Act. Attention was also invited to Article 40 of the Constitution which says that "the State shall take steps to organise village panchayat and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of self-Government". It has been argued that the directive principles require the State to develop panchayat as rt unit of the self-Government, and hence it would be against the directive principles to obliterate the Gram Panchayat by bringing them within the fold of corporation. The argument is not appealing because it could never be the intention of the constitution, while laying down directive principles, to rule the whole country through panchayats and panchayats alone. If the intention in any act of the State Government be to stultify the progress of the gram panchayat, then of course Article 40 might be attracted but where better privileges are given to particular area, better administration and all round improvement is envisaged in any act, I do not think Article 40 is any way offended. If of course the constitution of the corporation is held to be unconstitutional the question would be otherwise.