Village Panchayat Of Calangute, ... vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayats ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 666 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. Petitioner panchayat has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.3.2004, by which the revision application by the panchayat against the order of the block development officer dated 15th April, 2004 has been dismissed.

2. Apparently, the respondent No. 4 applied for water connection. This respondent filed an appeal before the block development officer as he was refused a no objection certificate for his residential house. The appellate authority, i.e. the block development officer, acting as the appellate authority, granted the prayer of respondent No. 4 and directed the panchayat, the petitioner herein, to grant N.O.C. within 30 days.

3. The panchayat preferred a revision before the Dy. Director of Panchayats, North Goa, at Panaji. This revision has been dismissed on the ground that it cannot be entertained at the instance of the panchayat. The revisional authority has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F. Rebjello and Anr. 1990 (1) Goa L.T. 70. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the village panchayat has no focus standi to challenge an order of the appellate authority by way of a writ petition on the ground that it would amount to subversion of judicial discipline. The said decision was rendered in the facts of that case and the law governing that case. In that case, the village panchayat had sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order made by the Dy. Collector acting as an appellate authority and had sought an injunction restraining the respondent therein from carrying on any construction based on the order of that appellate authority. The respondent therein was refused permission by the panchayat to construct on his own land. He, therefore, preferred an appeal under Section 83 of the Panchayats regulation to the Deputy Collector, who allowed his appeal. Against that, the village panchayat had filed the writ petition.

4. It must be noted that the present matter is governed by the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which was subsequent to the above decision of this Court. The order in appeal, which was made by the block development officer in the present case under Section 201-A, reads as under :

The appeal memo and the prayer of appellant is upheld and the respondent panchayat of Calangute is hereby directed to grant N.O.C. to the appellant Shri Francis D'Souza for release of water supply within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order without violating any of the procedure and also without any prejudice to any person in the matter.

The question is whether the appellate order is revisable at the instance of the village panchayat. I am of the view that the present situation is different from the one before the Division Bench which was considering the propriety of a writ petition by a village panchayat against an appellate order passed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation, 1962. Section 201-A reads as follows :

201-A. Appealon miscellaneous matter dealt by the panchayats.- (1) Where no appeal has been specifically provided in this Act on any miscellaneous matters which is dealt with by the panchayat or the village panchayat secretary or the sarpanch, an appeal shall lie to the block development officer within a period of thirty days from the date of refusal of any request by the said authority and his decision on such appeal, subject to the provision of Sub-section (2), shall be final.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "refusal" means rejecting of any request in writing or non conveying of any reply to the application within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of application in his office.

(2) A revision shall lie to the Deputy Director against any order passed by the block development officer under Sub-section (1) within a period of thirty days from the date of the order.

The statutory scheme enacted by Section 201-A, as is apparent from the section, provides for an appeal in respect of any miscellaneous matters which are dealt with by the panchayat or the village panchayat secretary or the sarpaiich and it provides for an appeal to the block development officer. Sub-section (2) clearly lays down that a revision shall lie to the Dy. Director of Panchayats against any order passed by the block development officer.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word "any order" suggests the intention of the Legislature to make an order passed by the block development officer, revisable. This submission seems to be correct. Indeed, the word "any" suggests that every order is revisable by the Dy. Director of Panchayats. It does not place any restriction as regards the nature of the order or the party applying for revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v, Marwanjee F. Desai and Ors. where the Supreme Court was considering an appellate provision which provided that an appeal shall lie from "every order of the competent authority". In that case, the High Court held that the competent authority being an arm or wing of the Government, cannot be permitted to lodge protest against its own order. Their Lordships considered this view to be a total misreading of the Statute and observed that in the event it is accepted, it would lead to a dangerous proposition having far reaching consequence (para 8).

6. In para (11), the Supreme Court observed as follows :

...True intent of the Legislature shall have to be gathered and deciphered in its proper spirit having due regard to the language used therein. Statement of objects and reasons is undoubtedly an aid to construction but that by itself cannot be termed to be and by itself cannot be interpreted. It is a useful guide but the interpretations and the intent shall have to be gathered from the entirety of the Statute and when the language of the sections providing an appeal to a forum is clear and categorical no external aid is permissible in interpretation of the same. The Legislature has deliberately used "every order" and if the restrictive meaning is attributed, as has been so done by the High Court, then the word "every" in any event becomes totally redundant but since the Legislature avoids redundancy every word used in the particular provision shall have to be attributed a meaning and attribution of any meaning to the word "every" by itself would negate the interpretation as found favour with the High Court. The word "every" has been totally ignored, which is neither permissible nor warranted.

I am of the view that the expression "any order" occurring in Sub-section (2) : must be similarly construed and the village panchayat must be held capable of applying for revision.

7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 30th March, 2004 is set aside. The Dy. Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji is directed to decide the petitioner's revision, on merits and in accordance with law.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press for the challenge against the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 25.11.2002.

9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute in the . <-A aforesaid terms.