Jayaraman, President, Siruvayalur Panchayat vs The State of Madras

S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—The sole question for determination in this appeal relates to the validity of the Government Order, G.O. Ms. No. 2298 (R.D. & L.A.), dated 20th October 1962 by which the Government directed that the headquarters of Alathur Block in Tiruchirappalli district should be located at Kolakanatham. The facts which led up to these proceedings are the outcome of a faction in the Alathur Panchayat Union Council, the majority faction being represented by its present president and the minority faction by the Appellant before us.

The Government in exercise of their powers reserved to them under the Madras Panchayats Act notified Alathur as a Panchayat Union Area in, October 1961. That union consisted of about thirty-four panchayats, Kolakanatham being one such panchayat. The president of the Kolakanatham panchayat who by reason of the statute became a member of the union council was ultimately elected as the president of the panchayat union council. At the time of the constitution of the union council the Government had ''fixed Alathur as the headquarters of the panchayat union council. The president of the union council soon after his election to that office became active and with his majority behind him he was able to pass a resolution in the council requesting the Government to shift the headquarters of the panchayat union council to his own home village of Kolakanatham. It is represented before us on behalf of the rival group that Kolakanatham village is very inconveniently situated and is not easily accessible to the other members of the panchayat union council. But that resolution of the union council, although it did not at first find support from the Collector of the district who required the council to reconsider the matter, was later approved by the District Development Council. The Government in response to the request of the panchayat union council by their Government order referred to above directed that the headquarters of Alathur Block in Tiruchirappalli district be located at Kolakanatham. Shortly after this Government Order, the Government have also issued another notification in exercise of their powers vested u/s 47of the Act saying:

Unless the Government by order otherwise direct, the office of the Panchayat Union Council shall be located in the Block Development Office concerned.

There is a block development council corresponding to the panchayat union council of the Alathur Panchayat. It is stated on behalf of the Government that the office of the Block Development Council is now situate at Kolakanatham village. If the Government Order first above mentioned is justified by the terms of Section 47, there can be little doubt that the order of the Government shifting the headquarters of the panchayat union council from Alathur to Kolakanatham would be justified as the office of the Block Development Council relative to the panchayat union council is how situate at Kolakanatham. It is, however, contended for the Appellant, a contention, which did not find acceptance with the learned Judge, that the power of the Government to initially fix the headquarters of the panchayat union council was only u/s 7 of the Act and that there being no other provision in the Act for changing the headquarters of the union council it would not be open to the Government to shift the headquarters of the union council and that, therefore, the impugned Government Order should be regarded as invalid.

Section 7(3) of the Act empowers inter alia the Government to declare a local area to be a panchayat development block and to declare such panchayat development block to be a panchayat union. Clause (c) to Section 7(3) empowers the Government to specify the name of the panchayat union. We are unable to find anything in Section 7(3)of the Act to justify the contention that the Government have no authority to fix the headquarters of any panchayat union council. Sub-clause (4) says:

The Government may by notification cancel or modify a notification issued under Sub-section (3) or alter the name of the panchayat union.

In the present case the name of the panchayat union has not been altered. It continues to be Alathur Panchayat Union Council. The only question is whether the Government have power to direct the union council to fix its headquarters in a place outside the Alathur village. On a reading of the Act and the relevant rules framed thereunder it will be apparent that the place where the panchayat union council has its office and when it meets will be its headquarters. There is nothing in Section 7(3) to authorize the Government to fix the place where the panchayat council has to meet although it could specify the name of the panchayat itself. Section 47 of the Act which provides for the meeting of the panchayat union council says that:

Every panchayat union council shall meet at such time and places and shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), observe such rules of procedure in regard to transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed.

Section 178 of the Act confers the necessary power upon the Government to make rules for the purposes of the Act. By a notification issued under the Act the Government have framed rules u/s 47(1) to the effect that the panchayat union council shall provide its office and the council shall meet therein for transacting its business. It is this rule that has now been modified by the impugned Government Order by directing the panchayat union council to have its office at Kolakanatham and later by directing the said council office to be located in the office of the Block Development. The power to fix the place where the panchayat union council has to meet or where the block development office is to be situated can, in our opinion be found only in Section 47 of the Act. It would, therefore, follow that the Government will have complete authority to prescribe from time to time, at which place the Block Development Office or the Panchayat Union Council should be situated and where the meeting of the panchayat union council should be held. The fact that the meeting of the panchayat union council is held in a village different from the one whose name the panchayat union council itself bears, will not in any way be contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Government can choose any place within the block to locate the office of the block development or for the meeting of the panchayat union council such meeting place will be the headquarters of the union council. The action of the Government in the instant case is, therefore, justified by the power vested in them u/s 47 of the Act. There are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.