Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10/Dated 04th February, 2022

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up through conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. The matter has been heard at length.

3. In the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No.49 of 2021 apart from the other prayers, the validity of the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 has also been questioned. In writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 1589 of 2021, the prayer has been made for issuance of a direction upon the State to strictly follow the mandate of the PESA Act, 1996 since the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 has not been enacted strictly in terms of the PESA Act, 1996.

He further submits, refuting the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the party in-person, that it is incorrect to say that the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001 is in the teeth of Section 4 of the PESA Act, 1996. The State has taken the plea in the counter affidavit by referring to the different Acts which according to the State of Jharkhand will be considered to be compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the PESA Act, 1996.

7. In response to such submission advanced on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.1589 of 2021 has submitted that since the State has come out with different statutes which cannot be said to be compliance of the mandate of the PESA Act, 1996 as under Section 4 thereof, rather, the Panchayati Raj Act, has been extended in the Scheduled Areas in view of the provision of PESA Act, 1996, therefore, it is incumbent upon the State of Jharkhand to come out with a specific rules in consonance with the provision of Section 4 of PESA Act, 1996.