AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Chagas Silva, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4.
Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 14/10/2009 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-I, South Goa, Margao in Panchayat Appeal No. 165 of 1999 dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 30/08/1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, South Goa, Margao.
During the pendency of the proceedings the Goa Panchayat Raj Act,1994 has been amended w.e.f 15/10/2010. By the said amendment, inter alia, Section 201B has been introduced. Section 201 B reads thus:
201B. Revision -
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a 4 revision shall lie against any order passed by any authority under this Act to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the dispute lies.
(2) Every revision application shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) The decision of the District court shall be final and binding on the parties to the revision.
(4) Every such revision shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the same within a period of three months from the date on which it is filed.
Perusal of Section 201B discloses that against an order passed by an authority under the Act which includes the Additional Director of Panchayats, revision lies to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the dispute lies and the revision application has to be filed within thirty days from the date of the order.
Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that he has no objection if the Petitioners are permitted to approach the District Court u/s 201B of the Act.
Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 submitted that the appropriate direction for the Petitioners is to approach the District Court with an application for condonation of delay.
Mr. Chagas Silva, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 submitted that in terms of Section 66 of the said Act the order passed by the Director of Panchayats is final and as such, the question of relegating the Petitioners to the District Court at this stage does not arise. According to the learned Counsel such an exercise is clearly not permissible in law and therefore the Petitioners should not be permitted to avail of remedy provided u/s 201B of the Act.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Indisputably, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners has not yet been admitted. During the pendency of the petition the Legislature has amended Section 201B of the Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion it would be appropriate to permit the Petitioners to resort to the remedy u/s 201B of the Act. I do not deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India since during the pendency of the petition the remedy of revision has been provided against the order passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats.
In view of the above, the Petitioners are permitted to challenge the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats by filing a revision application before the appropriate District Court within a period of four weeks from today. If the revision application is filed within the period of four weeks before the District Court, the District Court shall condone the delay and deal with the application in accordance with law. In case the revision application is not filed, within four weeks, the impugned order shall stand confirmed.
Needless to mention that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition. The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.