Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is necessary to quote the operative part of the impugned judgment which reads thus:

“14. Our conclusions based on the reasons discussed hereinabove, can be summarised as follows;

(1) Second proviso to each of Sections 12 (2) (b) and 58 (1-B) (b) of ZPPS Act are in conflict with first proviso to Section 4 (g) of PESA .

(2) Second proviso to each of Sections 42 (4) (a) and 67 (5) (a) of ZPPS Act are in conflict with the second proviso to Section 4 (g) of PESA.

(3) Proviso to Rule 4 (2) of 1996 Rules is also in conflict with first proviso to Section 4(g) of PESA (4) It is desirable for Law Departments of State and Union to have a dialogue to remove the discrepancy. (5) Till the time discrepancy is removed, provisions of ZPPS Act I 1996 Rules to the extent of repugnancy with PESA, as indicated hereinabove, will have to be ignored for practical application.

(6) It is not possible to treat Scheduled Area and other part from the same Panchayat, as separate zones, controlled by PESA and ZPPS Act, for the purpose of elections to Panchayats.

1 “PESA” 2 “The Act of 1961” (7) State Election Commission cannot deny responsibility of implementation of PESA in the field. In view of conclusions hereinabove, the writ petition will have to be and is accordingly allowed. Rule, which was made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties at the commencement of the arguments, is made absolute, by directing Respondent nos.l and 2 to implement the provisions of PESA for the elections of Panchayats at all levels in the districts of Dhule and Nandurbar.“ After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the entire exercise undertaken by the High Court of going into the issue of validity of the provisions of the 1961 Act and the rules framed thereunder was uncalled for. The reason is there was no challenge to the validity of the provisions of the 1961 Act in the writ petition.

The High Court records that there is a conflict between certain provisions of the 1961 Act and Section 4(g) of PESA. It is also observed that there is a conflict between proviso to Rule 4(2) of the 1996 Rules framed under the 1961 Act with Section 4(g) of PESA.

Surprisingly, the High Court expressed a view that the law departments of the State and the Union should have a dialogue to remove the discrepancies. Further, the Court directed that till the discrepancies are removed by the legislatures, the provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1996 Rules framed thereunder to the extent of repugnancy with PESA shall be ignored “for practical application”. Thereafter, the High Court proceeded to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State to implement the provisions of PESA for the elections of Panchayats at all levels in the districts of Dhule and Nandurbar.