Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.7 In the order the learned Single Judge made reference to the decision rendered by three different Division Benches in three different cases viz. (i) Kalubhai Keshrisingh Vs. State of Gujarat and others,1965 (6) GLR 459 (ii) Nathabhai M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1993 (2) GLR 992 and (iii) Likhi Group Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 (1) GLR 827 and held that ratio decidendi of Nathabhai's case is really in conflict with the ratio decidendi in case of Likhi Group Gram Panchayat. Thus, from the order of the learned Single Judge, following points arise for our consideration :

(i) What meaning could be attributed to term "Consultation" after due consideration of Kalubhai's case, Nathabhai's case and the case of Likhi Group Gram Panchayat (supra), and the case of Chhani Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, 2000 (2) GLR 1263 ?
(ii) Whether there is any conflict between ratio decidendi settled in Nathabhai's case and in the case of Likhi Group Gram Panchayat ?
(ii) Whether the Government, after taking a decision on the issue of bifurcation after due consultation, can again issue a Notification without fresh consultation of the Taluka Panchayats and Village Panchayats or whether the Government will have to undertake the exercise of fresh consultation ?

9. The reference order culminates into three material questions, as narrated above. The question that would be required to be dealt with, first, would be what meaning can be attributed to term 'Consultation'. In this regard, the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Sakalchand S. Sheth and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2328 and Baldevsingh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1239, followed by observations in the case of Bhalod Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Gujarat,1986 (1) GLR 247 would be relevant. The Apex Court has observed in the case of Sakalchand (Supra) that, "the term 'Consultation' means full and effective and not formal or unproductive consultation". The term used is consultation and not concurrence or consent which are not synonyms to each other, and operate differently. For an important that the consultation has to be meaningful and not formal. In the case of Nathabhai (Supra), this Court observed that, "for making consultation effective and clear, the Government ought to have disclosed a new material to the Panchayats and ascertained its view thereon, and thereafter held that as no result has been pointed out for not doing so, and because it does not point out that if the action of the Government is regarded invalid, it would be prejudicial to the public interest. The action of the Government was arbitrary and liable to be declared as invalid". We are also of the view that when the statute requires an Authority to consult before taking action, the consultation should not be a mere formality, but must be genuine and meaningful, then only the object of incorporation of this cause in the statute by the makers of law would be fulfilled, particularly in the case before us the consultation would enable the authority to understand and evaluate the implications of the proposed stage on a section of Society which is likely to be affected. The authority would know their point of view which would assist it in evaluating or judging the situation and take decision in the best interest of the society.

20. The Division Bench decisions rendered in Kalubhai Kesri Singh Mahida Vs. State of Gujarat, 1965 (6) GLR 451 and Nathubhai M. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 1993 (2) GLR 992 were prior to the aforesaid amendments in the Constitution relating to the composition and administration of the Panchayats. While upholding the nature of the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the old Act corresponding to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the new Act as `directory' and not `mandatory', it has been, succinctly, held that the scheme of the provisions in the context of the particular provisions under consideration and the intended benefit of the provision, as well as, the material danger by its contravention out to be seen and not only the actual words used in the statute. The proposition laid down for sublime and significant use of expression "consultation", at the time of reconstitution of a village and administration of Panchayat under the Act, has been materially signified and reinforced by the inclusion of Chapter IX in the Constitution of India. Needless to reiterate that the Court is required to determine and decide, appreciate and check the merits of each case, having regard to the subject-matter in the backdrop of the factual premise and profile, and the resultant impact and effect, in the event of failure or departure, as it "ipso-facto" may not constitute invalidity of the action. It may, also, be remembered that the legislature must have provided, for good reasons, that before effecting reconstitution of a village or a change in the administrative set-up for a Panchayat, the concerned Panchayat ought to be consulted and departure from non-compliance in the light of constitutional status to Panchayat Raj Institute, ought to be viewed, very seriously and, therefore, by now, the said provision has to be taken almost like a mandatory prescription though the expression employed in Section 7 (2) of the Act is "may".