Amar Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2278 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

.

CWP No. 1736 of 2021

Date of decision: March 19, 2021.

    Amar Lal                                     ......Petitioner.
                             Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.             .....Respondents.



    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice .

The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate

General for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notification dated 15.9.2020 bifurcating the Gram

Panchayat, Trilokinath has been assailed by a resident of village

Hinsa, Post Office, Trilokinath, Tehsil and District Lahaul & Spiti.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The writ petition merits dismissal for more than one

reasons:-

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

3(i) Petitioner has not been able to justify his locus standi

for maintaining the writ petition vis-a-vis the relief prayed for by

.

him. Writ petition is neither instituted by the concerned gram

panchayat nor a proper and valid resolution of the villagers

authorizing the petitioner to maintain writ petition on their behalf

has been appended with the writ petition. In this regard it would

be apposite to refer to following paras from the judgment

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4118 of

2020, titled Bihari Lal versus State of H.P. and others, decided on

16.12.2020:

"15. Additionally and more importantly, declaration of Sabha area is required to be done, in accordance with Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,

1994, which may be at the instance of the Gram Sabha concerned or at the instance of the Government, as is clearly evident from the bare reading of Section 3 of the

Act, which reads as under:-

3. Declaration of Sabha area.- (1) The Government may,

by notification, declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of not less than one thousand

and not more than five thousand to constitute one or more Sabha areas for the purposes of this act and also specify its headquarter:

Provided that in a Scheduled area the Government may by order declare any village or group of contiguous villages with a population of less than one thousand to constitute a Sabha area:

Provided further that the Government may, after having due regard of the geographical location, lack of means of transport and communication and administrative convenience, declare an area comprising a village or group of contiguous villages having a population either

less than one thousand or more than five thousand to constitute a Sabha area.

.

(2) The Government may, at the request of the Gram

Sabha concerned or otherwise, and after previous publication of a proposal by a notification, at any time,-

(a) increase any Sabha area by including within such

Sabha area any village or group of villages; or

(b) diminish any Sabha area by excluding from such Sabha area any village or group of villages; or

(c) alter the headquarter of any Sabha area; or

(d) alter the name of any Sabha area; or

(e) declare that any area shall cease to be a Sabha area: 2[***********] 3[(2-A) When on account of the reason that the Sabha

area is, during the term of the Gram Panchayat, increased

or diminished or ceased under sub-section (2), the increase or diminution or cessation of the Sabha area shall not affect the term of the office bearers of Gram Panchayat, till the expiration of the duration of the Gram

Panchayat specified in sub-section (1) of section 120 or its dissolution under section 140 of this Act.] (3) If the whole of the Sabha area is included in a

municipality, the Sabha area shall cease to exist and its assets and liabilities shall in the manner prescribed be

disposed of.

16. The instant petition, no doubt, makes reference to certain resolutions of the Gram Panchayat recommending therein its bifurcation. In case the respondents have not given effect to upon the resolutions, then the aggrieved, if any, shall only be the Gram Panchayat and not any individual, thus the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant petition."

3(ii) The petitioner has not been able to establish any

infringement of his right by the impugned notification issued in

.

exercise of powers under Section 3 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act,

1994.

3(iii) In CWP No. 3895 of 2020, titled Vijay Kumar versus

State, decided on 23.12.2020 relying upon various

pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court including State of

Panjab versus Tehal Singh, reported in 2002(2) SCC 7,

Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathiaja and ors. Vs. The Collector,

Thane, Maharashtra and ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 261,

(DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat & ors.,

reported in (2020) 6 SCC 548, Election Commission of India

v. Ashok Kumar and Others, reported in 2000 (8) SCC 216,

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,

reported in (1987) 2 SCC 510, Karnail Singh and another

Vs. Darshan Singh and Ors., reported in 1995 Supp.(1) SCC

760, Solapur Midc Industries Association and ors . Vs.

State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in (1996) 9 SCC

621, Nagar Panchayat Kurwai and another v. Mahesh

Kumar Singhal and ors., reported in (2013) 12 SCC 342, it

was held as under:-

"25. Thus, what can be deduced from the aforesaid discussions is that declaration of Sabha area is a legislative function and the principles of natural justice would not apply to the same. The notification constituting a Gram Sabha or abolishing a Gram Sabha is an act of

legislature and, thus, cannot be impugned on the grounds, which are available for an administrative or quasi judicial

.

order. The maxim audi alteram partem is not applicable,

even on necessary implication, meaning thereby, declaration of Sabha area, in terms of Section 3 of the Act, does not contemplate muchless envisages issuance of

notice, opportunity of filing objections and even hearing before ordering bifurcation of the Panchayat(s). Since bifurcation of the Panchayat itself is a legislative act, no mala fides can be attributed to the legislative act.

Therefore, we answer the preliminary submission concluding that all these petitions are not maintainable. "

Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate or prove

that the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat is either not in public

interest or that decision has not been taken by the government

in the interest of the inhabitants of the area or that there was

violation of any provision of applicable statute or that any of his

rights have been infringed. Petitioner has not even established

his locus standi for maintaining the writ petition.

For all the reasons, we find no merit in the instant

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the

pending application(s), if any.

( L. Narayana Swamy ) Judge

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge 19th March, 2020 (vs)