Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The term of about 14,234 Village Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra was to expire between the period from wp 3469.20 & ors.doc 01/04/2020 upto 31/12/2020. Clause (1) of Article 243E of the Constitution of India provides that every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for fve years from the date appointed for its frst meeting and no longer. Clause (3) (a) of Article 243E provides that an election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specifed in clause (1). In view of the constitutional mandate, the State Election Commission was obliged to conduct the general elections before the expiry of their terms as provided by Article 243E. However, due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, it became impossible for the State Election Commission to conduct such elections. Hence, considering the emergency situation, the State Election Commission decided to postpone these elections until further orders. In order to ensure that the ofces of the Village Panchayats do not remain vacant and to ensure the day to day functioning of the Village Panchayats is not impeded, the State Election Commission called upon the State Government to appoint Administrators over all such Village Panchayats by communications dated 20/04/2020 and 01/06/2020.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL 10.1 Learned Advocate General Shri Kumbhakoni on the other hand invited our attention to the detailed afdavit-in-reply 1 2006(1)Mh.L.J 131 wp 3469.20 & ors.doc fled on behalf of the State Government in support of his submissions. Relying on Article 243E of the Constitution he would submit that every Panchayat shall continue for fve years from the date appointed for its frst meeting and no longer. Emphasizing on the words 'no longer' in Article 243E, learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the clear constitutional mandate, it is impermissible for the existing Panchayat to continue after the completion of its term of fve years. According to him, if for reasons beyond the control of the State Election Commission holding of election is not possible, the existing elected body whose term has expired has no legitimate right to continue as Administrator.

10.2 Mr. Kumbhakoni then submitted that in view the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5234 of 2005 dated 10/08/2005 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. State Election Commission and ors (hereinafter referred to as State of Maharashtra - 1) and also in view of the decision in the case of 'State of Maharashtra - 2', the issue is no longer resintegra. He submitted that even when the provision for appointment of Administrator beyond the expiry of the constitutional term of fve years did not exist, this Court held that the State Election Commission could step in and in exercise of its powers under wp 3469.20 & ors.doc Article 243K, an Administrator could be appointed in such a situation. He would submit that even then the State Election Commission had appointed government ofcials as Administrator. 10.3 Mr.Kumbhakoni would then submit that the petitioners claim of parity between Village Panchayats on the one hand and on the other, the Co-operative Societies, Agricultural Produce Market Committees is unsustainable. According to him, Co-operative Societies and APMC function in diferent spheres and are constituted under separate enactments altogether. Moreover, the provision like Article 243E of the Constitution prohibiting the continuance of the existing Panchayats after the expiry of its term is not present in respect of Co-operative Societies or Agricultural Produce Market Committees. 10.4 Learned Advocate General contended that the State Election Commission requested the State Government to appoint an Administrator. Pursuant to this direction, the State took a decision to appoint a 'suitable' person as an Administrator by promulgating the Ordinance. According to him now that State Government having decided to appoint government ofcial/servant as Administrator, the petitioners cannot seek a wp 3469.20 & ors.doc relief which would be directly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in 'State of Maharashtra -2'.

25. The upshot of the above discussion is that the spread of Covid pandemic led to a situation where it was not possible for the State Government to complete the elections within the duration of the term of fve years in respect of Village Panchayats whose terms are to expire. Under Article 243E of the Constitution, the Panchayats can no longer continue after its duration of fve years. The constitutional vacuum is not contemplated in the afairs of the State. The State Election Commission has ensured that this vacuum is obviated by directing the State to appoint Administrator for the interregnum until new Panchayats are constituted. The State Government introduced amendment to section 151(1) (a) whereby a proviso was added to section 151(1)(a) enabling the State Government to appoint a 'suitable' person as an Administrator over the Village Panchayats whose elections could not be held by the State Election Commission as per schedule due to natural calamity or emergency or war or fnancial emergency or administrative difculties or epidemic disease. There was considerable debate over the term 'suitable' person. The State Government has now made its stand clear that it would appoint government wp 3469.20 & ors.doc ofcer/servant as Administrator over these Panchayats till new Panchayats are constituted. This stand of the State Government is in consonance with that of the State Election Commission. The Petitioners want the existing elected body to be 'Administrator' till the new body is constituted. The appointment / continuance of the existing body as Administrator after expiry of their term would be contrary to the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution & the said Act.