ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Page 0875
1. The Gram Panchayat of Doddabidarakallu, Yashwantpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, has presented this writ petition to declare Section 302 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as unconstitutional, unenforceable and to quash the notification. No. UDD 92 MNY 06 dated 16.1.2007, Annexure-A of the first respondent, insofar as it includes the area comprised in the petitioner Gram Panchayat, into the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
2. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat was constituted on 2.2.2005 under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993, for short ‘Panchayat Act’ with 27 elected representatives, comprised of two villages by name Doddabidarakallu & Kariobanahalli of Yeshawantpur Hobli of Bangalore North Taluk. The residents of the two villages are said to be agriculturists and agricultural labourers, by profession, dependent upon the agricultural lands for their livelihood. The petitioner claims to be a popular Gram Panchayat of Bangalore North Taluk, dedicated to the improvement of standard of living and carrying out developmental activities.
3. The Government of Karnataka in exercise of power under Clasue (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 for short ‘Corporation Act’ published in the Karnataka Extraordinary Gazette dated 2.11.2006, a preliminary Notification of even date Annexure-B, specifying the local limits of 7 City Municipal Councils, 1 (one) Town Municipal council and 111 Urbanised villages to be included into the area of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to be called as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, on or before 30 days therefrom. The Members of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, it is claimed, by resolution dated 4.11.2006 expressed dissatisfaction over its inclusion and within the time stipulated, submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore city, its written objections, Annexure-C.
4. It is the allegation of the petitioner that despite the letter dated 15.12.2006 Annexure ‘E’ of the District Minister recommending the deletion of the areas comprised in the Petitioner’s panchayat, and the objections, the villages similarly situated at a distance of 15 kms from Bangalore though included in the Notification Annexure-B were omitted in the Notification impugned, Annexure ‘A’ and the respondents, did not either consider the geographical criteria or and other vital statistics.
5. Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Sr. counsel advances the following two contentions:
1. that the Notification Annexure-‘B’ along with the petitioner’s objections were not referred to the Corporation for expressing its views Page 0876 thereon, as contemplated by Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, vitiating the Notification impugned; and
2. That Section 302 of the ‘Panchayat Act’ is ultravires Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the duration of the petitioner’s panchayat cannot be terminated at any time before the completion of its full term.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings, the following two questions arise for decision making:
a) Whether the Notification dated 16.1.2007 hearing No. UDD 92 MNY 2006 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 16.1.2007, Annexure-A, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 r/w Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the ‘Corporation Act’ is bad in law in view of the fact that the same is issued without referring the petitioner’s objections along with the draft Notification to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for expressing its views thereon?
b) Whether Section 302 of the ‘Panchayat Act’ as substituted by Act No. 10/97 with effect from 14.8.1997 is ultravires Article 243-E of the Constitution of India?
The inclusion and exclusion of areas within the limits of a district or taluk into a larger urban area, is provided for in Section 4 of the ‘Corporations Act’ which reads thus:
4. Inclusion and exclusion of areas in, or from the larger urban area:
(1) The Governor may having regard to the provisions of Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) by notification-
(a) include within the limits of the (larger urban area), any local area adjacent thereto; or
(b) exclude from the limits of the larger urban area, any local area comprised therein; and every such notification shall define the limits of the local area to which it relates.
2. No such notification shall be issued unless a draft thereof is-
(a) published in the Official Gazette for the information of all persons likely to be, affected thereby inviting objections and suggestions within one month from the date of publication; and
(b) referred to the Corporation for expressing its views thereon within the period specified in Clause (a).
3. Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, when a local area is excluded from the (larger urban area) –
(i) The rights and liabilities of the Corporation in such area shall vest in Government; and
(ii) Government shall, after consulting the Corporation, determine what portion of the Corporation fund and other property of the Corporation shall vest in Government for the Page 0877 benefit of the inhabitants of such local area and how the liabilities of the Corporation shall be apportioned between the Corporation and Government.
4. When a local area is included in the larger urban area, the provisions of this Act and all taxes, notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers, levied issued, made or conferred under this Act or any other law applicable to the (larger urban area), shall apply to the said area from the date of inclusion of such area within the (larger urban area).
7. A bare reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that a Notification could be issued after a draft of it is published in the Official Gazette for the information of all persons likely to be affected, inviting objections and suggestions within one month from the date of publication and that the draft thereto is referred to the Corporation for expressing its views thereon within the period specified in Clause (a). Clauses (a) and (b) of the said Subsection are independent of each other, while, Clause (a) provides for inviting objections and suggestions from persons likely to be affected, fixing the period of one month from the date of publication, Clause (b) is the reference of the draft notification to the Corporation for expressing its view thereto, within the period prescribed in Clause (a). These two clauses operate independent of each other while time limited by Clause (a) being common. Having regard to the express language deployed, in Clauses (a) and (b), it is beyond cavil of doubt that, the State Government is not obliged to refer the petitioner’s objections to the draft notification, to the Corporation to express its views thereon, within the time stipulated. The contention of the learned Sr. counsel that Clause (b) must be read to mean, a reference to the Corporation not only the draft notification; but also the objections filed by persons likely to be affected, in my considered opinion is a misinterpretation of the statute, not envisaged by the legislature, and hence unacceptable.
The first question is answered in the negative.
8. The next contention as regards the vires of Section 302 of the “Panchayat Act” is also without any merit.
9. Article 243-E of the Constitution of India reads thus:
243-E. Duration of Panchayats etc-
(1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the data appointed for its first meeting and no longer.
(2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in Clause (1).
(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed-
(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in Clause (1);
(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution;
Page 0878
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat.
4. A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued under Clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.
10. The analysis of Article 243-E(1) yields the result that the duration of the Grama Panchayat, continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force. Article 243-E(2) imposes an embargo on bringing about an amendment to any law for the time being in force to dissolve the Panchayat functioning immediately before the amendment, until the expiration of its duration specified in Clause (i).
11. Section 302 of the “Panchayat Act”, reads thus:
302. Consequences of absorption of part of a panchayat area or an area within the limits of a district or taluk into a larger urban area etc.-
(1) if during the term of office of a member of a Grama Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat, any area within the limits of a panchayat area, taluk or district being a whole area comprised in a territorial constituency represented by such member is included in, any larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area or if such area within the limits of a panchayat area or taluk is converted into a smaller urban area or transitional area (hereinafter referred to as other local area) notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, the following consequences shall ensue with effect from the date of such inclusion or conversion, namely:
(a) such member shall cease to be a member of the Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat and the total number of elected members of such Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat as the case may be, as determined already shall stand reduced accordingly.
(b) So much of the Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat fund or other property vested in such Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat shall he transferred to the fund of such local authority of the other local area, as the Government may by order in writing direct;
(c) The rights and liabilities of the Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat in respect of civil and criminal proceedings, contracts and other matters or things (including arrears of taxes, fees, cess and rates) arising in, or relating to the part of the area included in, or converted into the other local area shall vest in the local authority of Page 0879 the other local area and such rights and liabilities may be enforced by or against such local authority under the relevant law governing the ocal authority or the rules, bye-laws and orders made thereunder.
The Legislature in its wisdom, foreseen a situation of sooner dissolution of panchayat, on account of absorption of panchayat areas, enacted Section 302 of the Act. Thus the absorption of the entire area comprised in the petitioner Grama Panchayat to constitute a larger urban body, under the Notification impugned, after the members of the Grama panchayat were duly elected on 2.2.2005 and entitled to hold office for a term of five years from the date of first meeting to constitute the Grama Panchayat, nevertheless by the operation of Section 302, the members seized to be members of the Grama Panchayat, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force.
12. It is beyond cavil of doubt that Section 302 of the ‘Panchayat Act’ was substituted, in the ‘Panchayat Act’ with effect from 14.8.1997 when applied to the facts of this Case provided for the consequence of ceasure as a member of the petitioner Grama Panchayat, on absorption of the area comprised in the petitioner Grama Panchayat, before its members were declared elected on 2.2.2005 at its first meeting. Thus Clause (2) of Article 243-E has no application to the facts of this case. Having regard to the expression unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, in Article 243-E(1), the contention of the petitioner that Section 302 of the ‘Panchayat Act’ is ultravires the Constitution of India, pales into insignificance.
The second question is answered in the negative.
The writ petition is being without merit stands rejected.