Golalappa and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—1. The petitioners 1 and 2 are Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively of Mandewal Gram Panchayat and the petitioners 3 to 15 are the elected members of the said local body. They have challenged the notification, dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure-E) issued by the third respondent detaching Indiranagar Tanda from Harwal Gram Panchayat and attaching it to Mandewal Gram Panchayat. They have also raised the challenge to the consequential communication, dated 28/29.09.2015 (Annexure-J) issued by the fourth respondent to adhere to the order reorganising the rural local bodies in question. The said communication, inter alia, states that if the Adhyaksha fails to show the compliance, the necessary proceedings would be initiated under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act'').

Sri A. Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there can be no reorganisation of the rural local bodies after the elections. Whatever reorganisation and delimitation have to take place has to be only before the holding of elections. He submits that if the residents of Indiranagar Tanda wanted to raise any objection to their being tagged on to Harwal Gram Panchayat, they should have raised the same at appropriate time. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court''s judgment in the case of M.P. and others v. Devilal reported in , AIR 1986 SC 434. He submits that the reorganisation of the rural local bodies in question is hit by the proviso to Section 5 of the said Act.

Sri A. Vijay Kumar submits that if the four members of the Indiranagar Tanda are permitted to become the members of Mandewal Gram Panchayat, it deprives four residents of Mandewal village to become the members of its Gram Panchayat. He submits that the funds which are meant for developing Mandewal village cannot be diverted for developing Indiranagar Tanda.

Sri A. Syed Habeeb, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that the reorganisation of the local bodies is pursuant to the observation made by this Court in its order, dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-D) passed in W.P. No. 20864/2015. The said petition was filed by a resident of Indiranagar Tanda complaining that Indiranagar Tanda is about 23 K.M.s away from Harwal Gram Panchayat.

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this petition is liable to be rejected in view of the alternative remedy of filing the revision petition before the Commissioner, invoking Section 4 of the said Act.

He submits that the funds for development are released for a Gram panchayat for all the areas/villages which are part of a particular panchayat. He would therefore contend that the petitioners are not justified in stating that the funds cannot be diverted for the development of Indiranagar Tanda.

Sri Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submits that Indiranagar Tanda is 23 kms. away from Harwal and that there are 6 Gram Panchayats between Indiranagar Tanda and Harwal; on the other hand, the distance between Mandewal and Indira Nagar Tanda is just 1 1/2 kms. It is for the better governance of the villages that Indiranagar Tanda is rightly made a part of Mandewal Gram Panchayat.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devilal (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any way for two reasons: (i) In Devilal''s case, it was gerrymandering (ii) The provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act are not in pari-materia with the provisions of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

The perusal of the statement of objects and reasons to Karnataka Panchayat Raj Bill 1993 reveals that it was brought in to ensure greater participation of the people and for more effective implementation of the rural development programs. As Indiranagar Tanda is 23 kms. away from Harwal, this Court by its order, dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-D) passed in W.P. No. 20864/2015 reserved the liberty to the petitioner in the said case to make the representation to the Government in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the Government has passed the impugned corrigendum notification, dated 10.09.2015 withdrawing Indiranagar Tanda from Harwal and attaching to Mandewal Gram Panchayat. Following the procedure prescribed by law the re-organisation of the said rural local bodies has taken place. The impugned orders states that it was unscientific and erroneous to have attached Indiranagar Tanda to Harwal Gram Panchayat. The corrigendum notification is issued to effect the rectification. I am not persuaded to accept that the impugned corrigendum notification suffers from any illegality.

The issuance of the impugned corrigendum notification does not in any way affect the rights or privileges of the petitioners. Whenever the amalgamation of panchayat areas takes place by virtue of the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, what consequence would ensue are spelt out in Section 117(d) of the said Act:

"117. Effect of amalgamation of Panchayat area: (1) When during the term of office of members of Grama Panchayats, two or more contiguous panchayat areas are amalgamated and declared to be a panchayat area (hereinafter in this section referred to as the amalgamated panchayat area) by virtue of notification under Section 4, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, with effect from the date on which such notification is issued (hereinafter in this section referred to as the specified date) the following consequences shall ensue, namely-

(a)............

(b)............

(c)............

(d) The members of the interim Grama Panchayat so constituted, shall subject to the provisions of Sections 12, 13, 43 and 43-A hold office for the remainder of the period for which all the existing Grama Panchayats would have continued or where the remainder of the period is different in respect of different existing Grama Panchayats, till the remainder of the period of the last of such existing Grama Panchayats would have expired had there not been amalgamation of panchayat areas under this section;

(e)............"

On the spacious ground that the tagging of the Indiranagar Tanda to Mandewal Gram Panchayat is impeding the developmental work in Mandewal, I do not propose to interfere. All the panchayat areas have to develop. Development has to be inclusive.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to the impugned corrigendum notification fails. The challenge to the communication, dated 28/29.09.2015 (Annexure- J) also fails, as the said communication is only consequential to the issuance of the impugned corrigendum notification.

These petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.