Case Brief: State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and ors.

Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: V.N. KHARE & B.N. AGRAWAL
Date of Judgement: 07/01/2002
Facts of the Case: There is a village called Wazidpur in Block Ghal Khurd in the district of Firozepur, Punjab. In the said village and certain other adjoining areas, Gram Sabha, Wazidpur was constituted and established under Section 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ’1952 Act’). The areas included in the said Gram Sabha were villages Khanpur and Harijan Colony. After 73rd Constitutional amendment Act, 1992 came into force Punjab legislature enacted the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in conformity with the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. After the Act came into force, it appears that the residents of village Khanpur represented to the Government for having an independent Gram Sabha for village Khanpur by including certain portions of area of Gram Sabha, Wazidpur. The Government after making inquiry issued notifications dated 24.10.97 under Sections 3,4 and 10 of the Act respectively. By the said notification, the Government under Section 3 of the Act declared the territorial area of Gram Sabha, Khanpur comprising of abadi portions of village Wazidpur and village Khanpur and Harijan Colony. By another notification of the same date, the Government declared the establishment of Gram Sabha, Khanpur under Section 4 of the Act. The Government also constituted Gram Panchayat for the Gram Sabha, Khanpur. It was at this stage, respondent No. 1, who was Sarpanch of Gram Sabha, Wazidpur and respondent No. 2, who was the Member of the Gram Panchayat, Wazidpur filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notifications dated 24.10.97. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notifications dated 24.10.97 to the extent it related to the Gram Sabha, Khanpur were set aside. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the State of Punjab has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition.
Judgement: Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed  the contentions raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court inter alia, were that no opportunity of hearing having been afforded before declaring the territorial area of village Khanpur inasmuch as before establishing Gram Sabha, Khanpur, the notifications were invalid; that, the locality Harijan Colony not being contiguous to village Khanpur, the said locality could not have been included in Gram Sabha, Khanpur and, that, the notifications under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act could not have been issued simultaneously and, therefore, the notifications are invalid.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant quoted cases like Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. etc., [1981] 2 SCC 722 and Union of India and Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. and Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 720, andhe principles of law that emerge from the aforesaid decisions are-(l) where provisions of a statute provide for the legislative activity, i.e. making of a legislative instrument or promulgation of general rule of conduct or a declaration by a notification by the Government that certain place or area shall be part of a Gram Sabha and on issue of such a declaration certain other statutory provisions come into an action forthwith which provide for certain consequences; (2) where the power to be exercised by the Government under provisions of a statute does not concern with the interest of an individual and it relates to public in general or concerns with a general direction of a general character and not directed against an individual or to a particular situation and (3) lay down future course of actions, the same its generally held to be legislative in character.
Viewed in the light of the statement of law stated hereinbefore, the Court found that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act which provide for declaring territorial area of a Gram Sabha and establishing a Gram Sabha for that area do not concern with the interest of an individual citizen or a particular resident of that area. Declaration contemplated under Sections 3 of the Act relates to an area inhabited by the residents which is sought to be excluded or included in a Gram Sabha. The declaration under Section 3 of the Act by the Government is general in character and not directed to a particular resident of that area. Further, the declarations so made under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act do not operate for the past transactions but for future situations. The Court is, therefore, of the view that on making of declaration under Section 3 of the Act determining the territorial area of a Gram Sabha and thereafter establishing a Gram Sabha for that area is an act legislative in character in the context of the provisions of the Act.
Also, it is almost settled law that an act legislative in character-primary or subordinate, is not subjected to rule of natural justice. In case of a legislative act of legislature, no question of application of rules of natural justice arises. However, in case of subordinate legislation, the legislature may provide for observance of principle of natural justice or provide for hearing to the resident of the area before making any declaration in regard to the territorial area of a Gram Sabha and also before establishing a Gram Sabha for that area. However, it depends upon the legislative wisdom and the provisions of an enactment. In the present case, the provisions of the Act do not provide for any opportunity of hearing to the residents before any area falling under a particular Gram Sabha is excluded and included in another Gram Sabha. In the absence of such a provision, the residents of that area which has been excluded and included in a different Gram Sabha cannot make a complaint regarding denial of the opportunity of hearing before the issue of declarations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act respectively. The Court held that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given before the issue of declaration under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, notifications under Section 3 and 4 could not have been issued simultaneously has to be held erroneous. After perusals the Court found that Harijan Colony although not totally, but partially is contiguous to village Khanpur and, therefore, there was substantial compliance of the provision of sub-section (i) of the Section 3 of the Act, and, therefore, the view taken by the High Court was erroneous.
Decision: For the reasons abovementioned, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside.
Sudipta Bhowmick, IVth Year, B.A. LL.B., School of Law, KIIT University, Odisha