The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj Vs Vikram Singh & Ors held that without holding the statutory provisions constitutionally invalid, the High Court could not have issued a direction not to implement the statutory provisions.
Brief Facts:
The writ petition was filed before the division judge bench of the High Court in which it was prayed to adhere to the rotation policy for the general elections to Panchayats in the State of Maharashtra to be held in the year 2007, in compliance with the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996.)”. The writ petition before the High Court was based on the fact that the State Election Commission will not give effect to the provisions of the Panchayat (Extension of Schedule Areas) Act, 1996. Furthermore, the averment was made in the Petition that Sections 12(2) and 58(1b) of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 are said to be in conflict with portions IX and X of the Indian Constitution.
The High Court was of the view that there exists a conflict between certain provisions of the 1961 act and Section 4(g) of the PESA. Furthermore, the Court issued directions that the provisions of the 1961 Act and the 1996 Rules adopted thereunder to the extent that they are incompatible with PESA must be disregarded "for practical application" until the differences are resolved by the legislatures.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court disagreed with the High Court’s order by stating that the law has been established. The constitutionality of a statutory instrument is always presumed to be true. Secondly, no arguments in the writ petition demonstrate how Section 4(g) of PESA and the pertinent 1961 Act provisions are incompatible with one another. Thirdly, the 1961 Act's provisions and the rules created in accordance with them are not contested in the writ petition. Therefore, it is clear that the State was unaware of the contentions made at the writ petition hearing challenging the legality of the 1961 Act. The State Advocate General did not even get a notification.
It was observed that the relevant provisions, which were determined to be inconsistent with PESA, were not struck down by the High Court and only that certain parts of the 1961 Act and the rules formulated thereunder shall be disregarded until the difference is resolved by the legislature is stated in the directive. The Hon’ble Court didn’t agree with this approach of the High Court.
The Top Court rejected the submission made by the Writ Petitioners by stating that it can’t be accepted as the Writ Petition was filed 15 years back.
It was noted that the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2008 and as per the pleadings in the writ petition, it was found that the Writ Petition was filed only to address the forthcoming elections. Furthermore, the writ court has examined a number of factual concerns, including the type of Panchayats, etc and the pleadings did not support this exercise.
Based on these considerations, the Top Court dismissed and set aside the writ petition.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Dhanraj Vs Vikram Singh & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3117/2009
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 520 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Khrde, Adv. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Meshram, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Patil, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Shantanu M Adkar, Adv. Ms. Rekha Rani, Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mrs.Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs.Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. B.k Satija, Adv. Mrs.Chitrangada Rashtrawara, Adv. Mr.Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
