Birsa Munda vs State of Jharkhand and Others

R.K. Merathia, J.—Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the grievance of the Petitioner in this writ petition is that two Blocks of two Panchayats of eastern Latehar Zila Parishad were amalgamated with western part and two parts of western part were amalgamated in eastern part without considering the objection of the concerned people as required u/s 159 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001.

Mr. Gadodia, learned Counsel was requested on the last occasion to assist the Court. He submitted that Section 159 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2001, is not applicable in this case as two Panchayats have been interchanged between eastern and western part of the same Zila Parishad and there is no changes as provided u/s 159 so far as the limit and local area of Panchayat is concerned. He further submitted that only for the administrative convenience such changes were made, which is in consonance of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rule, 2001. He lastly submitted that it is not known how the Petitioner is said to be aggrieved by the said changes.

Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned State counsel adopted the said submissions. However, he relied on paragraphs 44 & 45 of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. and others etc. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others etc., and submitted that it is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will be delimited and it is not for the court to dictate the manner in which the same would be done.

I find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Petitioner cannot complain about the interchanging of two panchayat between eastern and western part of the same Zila Parishad, Latehar. The people of those panchayats are well represented as provided under the relevant rule.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.