[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Jhapatsing vs State Of Odisha on 9 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2388 of 2024
In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of
Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court
Order, 1948 and Chapter-III, Rule 6 of Orissa High Court Rules,
1948 from judgment dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22668 of 2016.
...
1. Krushna Chandra Jhapatsing.
2. Ajaya Kumar Mohanty. .... Appellants
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department.
2. State Election Commissioner, Odisha.
3. Director, Panchayati Raj.
4. Collector & District Magistrate,
Khurda.
5. Block Development Officer, Bolgarh
& Election Officer, Khanguria Grama
Panchayat.
6. Sarpanch, Khanguria Grama
Panchayat. .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr.Ashok Kumar Das, Advocate.
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee, AGA
For R.1, 3, 4 & 5.
Mr.Subash Ch. Rath,
Advocate for R.6
Page 1 of 4
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 09.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.
This Intra-Court Appeal seeks to call in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 21.06.2024, whereby Appellants'
WP(C) No.22668/2016 seeking quashment of Commissioner's
order No.23098 dated 09.12.2016 has been negatived. By the said
order of the Commissioner, Appellants' representation for the
bifurcation of Khanguria Grama Panchayat and for creation of
Sampur Grama Panchayat has been rejected.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and
having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the
matter for the following reasons:
2.1. Section 3 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 vests
power in the State Government inter alia for the creation of
Grama Panchayats keeping in view certain social parameters. This
it does by issuing a notification published in the gazette by
enlisting group of villages that would become the Grama
Panchayat. The said body will be named after one of such
constituent villages. Sub-section 3 prescribes the population as a
parameter for the exercise of this power and it reads as under:
"...(3) No Grama shall, so far as may be reasonably
practicable, be constituted with a population of less than two
thousand and more than ten thousand but in no event shall a
village be divided and a part thereof included within a Grama."
2.2. The vehement submission of learned counsel representing
the Appellants that once the population exceeds ten thousand, such
a Grama Panchayat as of necessity has to be bifurcated and
thereby a new Panchayat needs to be established, is bit difficult to
countenance and reasons for this are not far to seek:
i. The language of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the 1964 Act
is conditional and selectively mandatory, as would come out from
the text. This Sub-section employees the expression 'so far as may
be reasonably practicable'. Thus, it is not that once the population
exceeds the limit, the State Government has to constitute a new
Grama Panchayat by bifurcation. An argument to the contrary
would rob off the significance of the above expression and render
it otiose. In the normative interpretative process, a Court cannot do
it. If the legislature intended that no discretion should avail to the
State Government in the matter of bifurcation, this expression
would not have figured in the provision.
ii. Creation, alteration and bifurcation of Grama Panchayats is
a matter of policy. The language of Section 3 of the Act has been
accordingly structured. What all would constitute 'practicable' is a
matter, which does not admit judicial assessment. It is for the
Executive to take a decision in its wisdom acquired through
accumulated experience. A Writ Court cannot run a race of
opinions with the Executive, in matters like this.
iii. It hardly needs to be stated that doctrine of separation of
powers is recognized in our Constitution vide Ram Jawaya Kapur
v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549. A Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975
SC 1590 has held that this doctrine is a basic feature of the
Constitution. Each organ of the State has to show due deference to
the decisions of other. Judicial review is not a panacea to all
administrative decisions of the Government, notwithstanding
arguable infirmities. Remedy for such wrongs lie not in the Court
halls but in electoral process that happens with fair degree of
regularity.
2.3. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that under the
Notification No.10729, vide paragraphs 5 & 6, the population is
not the sole criteria for reconstitution or bifurcation of the existing
Grama Panchayat. The said paragraphs read as under:
"5. Grama Panchayats having population around 10,000 or more
shall be bifurcated and reorganized basing on geographical
location, natural barrier and administrative convenience for
constitution of a new Grama Panchayat.
6. Boundary of existing Grama Panchayat will be changed by
inclusion and exclusion of villages on the ground of geographical
contiguity, natural barrier and administrative convenience."
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 9th day of March, 2026 /Basu
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 12-Mar-2026 10:03:25
