8/5/2019 Case Brief: State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and ors.
| Law Mantra
Law Mantra
a
Case Brief: State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh
and ors.
by Law Mantra | Jul 29, 2015 | Judgment | 0 comments
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 noti cations
dated 24.10.97 under Sections 3,4 and 10 of the Act respectively. By the said
noti cation, 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 noti cation 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 led a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the noti cations
dated 24.10.97. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned
noti cations 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 a orded before declaring the territorial area of
village Khanpur inasmuch as before establishing Gram Sabha, Khanpur, the
noti cations 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
https://www.lawmantra.co.in/case-brief-state-of-punjab-v-tehal-singh-and-ors/ 1/3
8/5/2019 Case Brief: State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and ors. | Law Mantra
and, that, the noti cations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act could not have been issued
simultaneously and, therefore, the noti cations 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 noti cation
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 di erent 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, noti cations
under Section 3 and 4 could not have been issued simultaneously has to be held
https://www.lawmantra.co.in/case-brief-state-of-punjab-v-tehal-singh-and-ors/ 2/3
8/5/2019 Case Brief: State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh and ors. | Law Mantra
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
Privacy Policy Terms Of Use Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 Law Mantra | Made With By TechTwigs
https://www.lawmantra.co.in/case-brief-state-of-punjab-v-tehal-singh-and-ors/ 3/3
