Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

12. Prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand, the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 was already in operation but even then, after creation of State of Jharkhand, the Panchayati Raj Act has been brought into being in the year 2001 but that cannot be said to be in consonance with the provision of Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 and that is the reason, these writ petitions have been filed by way of pro bono publico.

13. It has further been submitted that the objection to the draft has been rejected on 24.11.2023 and since then about eight months has elapsed, still the Rule has not taken its final shape. It Page 9 has further been submitted that non-framing of the Rule even after deciding the objection is not understandable, rather, it is best known to the State-respondents that why, as yet the Rule has not been brought into being.