http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DEVILAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1985

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

MADON, D.P.

CITATION:

1986 AIR 434 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 894

1986 SCC (1) 657 1985 SCALE (2)1470

ACT:

Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 - Sections 106, 361

and 370 - Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election and Co-option

Rules, 1963 - Rule 3 - Modification or alteration of the

Constituencies of a block once delimited by a Notification

u/s 106 after the process of election of members of Janapada

Panchayat has started - Powers of the State Government -

What are - Affording an opportunity to electorate to raise

objection - Whether mandatory and necessary.

HEADNOTE:

After the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the

State under s.3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962,

the State Government in accordance with s.103 divided

Mandsaur District into eight blocks with Manasa Block as one

of them where a Janapada Panchayat was to be established.

Under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the State Government by a

notification dated September 26, 1969 divided this Block

into twenty constituencies from which the representatives of

the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa were to be elected. After the

Constituencies were notified, the elections to the Gram

Panchayats in the block were completed on November 8, 1970

and duly notified by the Collector on November 14, 1970. On

the same day, the new Gram Panchayats assumed office. On

November 25, 1970, the State Government published a

notification under s. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution

of the constituencies of the block. On November 29, 1970,

the Collector also issued a notification reallocating the

reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes.

The respondent, Sarpanch of a Gram Sabha, qualified to

contest the elections of the President and Vice-President of

the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition under Art.

226 challenging the validity of notifications dated November

25, 1970 and November 29, 1970 on the grounds : (1) that the

State Government had no statutory power under s. 106 of the

Act to alter or modify the constituencies once they had been

notified and the process of election had started ; (2) that

the issuance of the notification was mala fide and

politically motivated with a view to further the prospects

of the party in power, and (3) that

895

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

assuming the State Government was empowered to alter or

modify the Constituencies of a block during the progress of

election to the Janapada Panchayats, the notification for

re-distribution of the constituencies was illegal and

inoperative as it had been published without affording an

opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection.

The appellant State contested the petition contending :

(1) that the Gram Panchayats and Janapada Panchayats are two

distinct and separate entities, and the Act envisages

different procedures for holding independent elections and

merely because the Gram Panchayat elections were over it

could not be said that a notification modifying the

constituencies of the Gram Panchayats could not be issued

under s. 106; (2) that the notification seeking to alter the

constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa Block alone but

to many other blocks in the district and, therefore, the

issuance of the notification was not actuated with political

motives, and (3) that the provisions of ss. 105 and 106 do

not make it obligatory on the part of the State Government

to afford an opportunity of raising objections.

The High Court quashed the notifications and held that

when the process of election of members to the Janapada

Panchayat starts, the State Government had no power to alter

or modify the constituencies of a block once delimited by a

notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106.

In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant-

State it was contended that the view taken by the High Court

was in conflict with its earlier decision in Kalyansingh

Kathor & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., A.I.R.

1974 M.P. 84, wherein it was held that the exercise of the

power by the State Government cannot be challenged except on

proof of mala fides.

Dismissing the appeal,

^

HELD : 1. The notification dated November 25, 1975

issued by the State Government under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of

the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act 1962 is in-valid. [908 C]

2. The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into

constituencies under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of the Act is to

ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation

to the Gram Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat

and the Zila

896

Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority

system depends in fact not only on the way people vote but

on the way their votes are distributed among the

constituencies. It was, therefore, impermissible for the

State Government to redistribute the constituencies in the

Manasa Block under sub-s.(1) of s. 106. [907 B-C]

3. A close and combined reading of the provisions of

the Act make it quite evident that the actual control over

the Gram Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada

Panchayat for the block and the result of the elections to

the Janapada Panchyat would depend upon the nature of the

electoral roll prepared for each constituency in a block. If

the State Government were to issue a notification under sub-

s.(1) of s. 106 for redistribution of the constituencies in

a block after the process of election had started, it would

necessarily change the whole pattern of voting in the

election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. This is

plainly a typical case of gerrymandering, which means to

arrange elections districts so as to given an unfair

advantage to the party in power by means of redistribution

act or to manipulate constituencies generally. [905 B-D]

4. Delimitation of the constituencies in a block under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

sub-s. (1) of s. 106 is connected with the holding of

election of members to the Janapada Panchayat and

delimitation of such constituencies would arise when there

is alteration in the limits of Gram Sabha area under sub-s.

(2) of s. 361 of the Act which brings about a change in a

block or alteration in the limits of the block under sub-s.

(4) of s. 370. Amalgamation, splitting up and alteration in

the limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried out after

following the procedure prescribed by ss. 360 and 361.

Alteration of the limits of a block can be affected by the

State Government after following the procedure prescribed in

s.370 of the Act. [905 E-F; 906 B]

In the instant case, there was no alteration either in

the limits of the Gram Sabhas area under sub-s. (2) of s.

361 or of the block under sub-s.(4) of s. 370 and,

therefore, there was no occasion for the State Government to

issue a fresh notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106

restructuring the constituencies of the block. The

notification issued by the State Government seeking to alter

constituencies of the block after the process of election of

members to the Janapada Panchayat had started and the

notification by the Collector for the reallocation of the

reserved seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended and

meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchyat. [906 F-H;

907 A]

897

5. When there is an alteration in the limits of a Gram

Sabha area under sub-s. (2) of s. 361 or in the limits of a

block under sub-s. (4) of s. 370, it may be that the State

Government would have to issue the requisite notification

for delimitation of the constituencies of such altered block

under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of the Act. It is only upon

compliance of the mandatory requirements of sub-s. 3 then

the State Government can proceed to issue a notification.

[906 E-F]

6. It is only upon compliance of the mandatory

requirements of sub-s. 3 that the State Government can

proceed to issue a notification under sub-s. (4) of s. 370

for the alteration of the limits of a block. This procedure

implies the giving of an opportunity to the persons

affected. [908 A-B]

In the instant case, there was really no occasion for

the State Government to have issued the notification dated

November 25, 1970 seeking to restructure the constituencies

of the block in the midst of the elections. Even if there

was such a power, the State Government was in duty bound to

publish the proposal giving an opportunity to the persons

affected to raise their objections to the proposed

alteration.[908 B-C]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2472 of

1972.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1972 of the

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 21

of 1971.

H.K. Puri for the Appellants.

S.K. Dholakia, S.K. Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan and Mrs.

Sunita Kriplani for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. The issue involved in this appeal on

certificate from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

High Court dated January 4, 1972 is as to the powers of the

State Government under s. 106 of the Madhya Pradesh

Panchayats Act, 1962 to modify or alter the constituencies

of a block once delimited by a notification issued

thereunder after the process of election of members of the

Janapada Panchayat has started; particularly, without

affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any

objection. On the question involved, conflicting views have

been

898

expressed by two Division Benches of the High Court and the

High Court certifies that the question raised is one of

frequent occurrence and great importance.

By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the

High Court has held that the provisions of the Act do not

confer any power on the State Government to modify or alter

the constituencies once fixed by a notification issued under

sub-s. (1) of s.106 of the Act and fixing the number of

members to be elected from each constituency. It accordingly

struck down the impugned notification issued by the State

Government dated November 25, 1970 under ss. 105 and 106 of

the Act purporting to restructure the constituencies of the

Manasa Block.

Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. After

the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the State under

s. 3 of the Act, the State Government in accordance with s.

103 divided the Mandsaur District into eight blocks with

Manasa Block as one of them where a Janapada Panchayat was

to be established. Under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the

State Government by a notification dated September 26, 1969

divided this Block into twenty constituencies from which the

representatives of the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa were to be

elected, with one representative to be elected from each

constituency. After the constituencies were notified, the

elections to the Gram Panchayats in the block were completed

on November 8, 1970 and they were duly notified by the

Collector, Mandsaur on November 14, 1970. On the same day,

the new Gram Panchayat assumed office. On November 25, 1970,

the State Government published a notification purporting to

be under s. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution of the

constituencies of the block. On November 29, 1970, the

Collector also issued a notification reallocating the

reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes. The respondent who had been elected as the Sarpanch

of the Gram Sabha, Alhed and was thus qualified to contest

the elections of the President and Vice-President of the

Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition in the High

Court under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the

validity of the impugned notification dated November 25,

1970 issued by the State Government for re-delimitation of

the constituencies of the block and the notification by the

Collector dated November 29, 1970 for the reallocation of

the reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Schedule

Tribes. In assailing the validity of the impugned

notification dated November 25, 1970, the respondent

pleaded, inter alia, that the State Government had not

statutory power under s. 106 of the Act to alter or modify

the

899

constituencies once the same had been notified and the

process of election had started, that the issuance of the

impugned notification was mala fide and politically

motivated with a view to further the prospects of the party

in power and that, even otherwise, assuming that there was

such a power in the State Government to alter or modify the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

constituencies of a block during the progress of election to

the Janapada Panchayat, the impugned notification for re-

distribution of the constituencies for the Manasa was

illegal and inoperative as it had been published without

affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any

objection. The respondent, accordingly, sought a writ in the

nature of mandamus and other appropriate writs, orders and

directions under Art.226 of the Constitution directing the

State Government to forebear from giving effect to the

impugned notifications.

The appellants contested the writ petition filed by the

respondent on various grounds, namely : (1) The Gram

Panchayats and Janapada Panchayats are two distinct and

separate entities and the Act envisages independent

elections to be held for the same. (2) The scheme of the Act

provides that the Act prescribes for different procedures

for the holding of elections to the Gram Panchayat elections

were over on November 14, 1970, it could not be said that a

notification modifying the constituencies of the Gram

Panchayats could not be issued under s. 106 of the Act. (3)

The impugned notification seeking to alter the

constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa Block alone but

to many other blocks in the district and therefore the

allegation that the issuance of the notification was

actuated with political motives was wholly without basis.

And (4) The provisions contained in ss. 105 and 106 of the

Act do not make it obligatory on the part of the State

Government to afford an opportunity of raising objections

and therefore the State Government was justified in issuing

the impugned notification.

On a construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of the Act, a

Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under

appeal held that the State Government has no power to alter

or modify the constituencies of a block once delimited by a

notification issued thereunder. The High Court referred to

the scheme of the Act, particularly to s. 103 which

contemplates the division of blocks into constituencies. In

the context, it observed that looking at the provisions of

s. 360 or s. 370 of the Act, it was evident that where the

legislature thought fit it had expressly conferred powers on

the State Government for altering

900

the limits. It referred to s. 360 of the Act which provides

for alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas and s. 370 which

provides for alteration in the limits of the blocks and for

the purpose of alteration of such limits both of which also

provide for the following of a particular procedure. The

High Court observed that on the contrary the provisions

contained in s. 106 nowhere contemplate the conferral of any

such power on the State Government for alteration of

constituencies once fixed and notified under ss. 105 and 106

of the Act. It stated that s. 107 was of no avail as it

deals with the constitution of a Janapada Panchayat and does

not relate to the delimitation of constituencies as that is

specifically provided for in s. 106 of the Act. It then

added :

"The only question deserving consideration is, as

stated above, about the powers of the State

Government to do it. Consequently, as discussed

above, there is no provision empowering the State

Government to alter the constituencies once

prescribed and notified under the provisions of s.

106 of the Act. Therefore, the notification issued

by the State Government, published in the Gazette

dated 25th November, 1970 is beyond the powers of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

the State Government and has, therefore, to be

quashed."

These observations must, in our opinion, be construed to

mean that when the process of election of members to the

Janapada Panchayat starts, the State Government has no power

to alter or modify the constituencies of a block once

delimited by a notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of

the Act.

In the appeal, two questions mainly arise, namely :(1)

Whether the High Court was right in holding that the

provisions of the Act do not contemplate for any amendment

of a notification issued earlier under Sub-s. (1) of s. 106

of the Act dividing the block into constituencies or fixing

the number of members to be elected from each constituency.

And (2) Whether the impugned notification for re-structuring

the constituencies of the Manasa Block was invalid as it had

been issued without affording an opportunity to the

electoral to raise any objections. We shall deal with the

questions in that sequence.

It is urged that the view taken by the High Court was

plainly in conflict with the view expressed by an earlier

Division Bench in Kalyansingh Rathor & Ors. v. The State of

Madhya Pradesh & Anr. A.I.R. 1972 M.P. 84. Bishambhar Dayal,

CJ.,

901

speaking for the Division Bench, repelled the contention

that the State Government had no power to modify or alter

the Constituencies in a block once fixed by a notification

under s. 106 of the Act and stated :

"Constituencies could not be unchangeable for

ever. So far as Sections 360 and 370 are

concerned, they relate to an addition to or

subtraction from the area of a Gram Sabha or a

particular block. The fixation of constituencies

is not a matter of adding to or subtracting from a

particular Gram Sabha or block. It is a matter of

redistribution of a Gram Sabha into

constituencies. That may be necessitated by

several reasons from time to time e.g. efflux of

population from one Gram Sabha to another or an

increase or decrease of population at one place or

another and so on. The Legislature did not

consider it necessary to provide any standard or

circumstances under which only such an amendment

could be made by the Government. The power to make

amendments in the constituencies in the same block

was, therefore, left in the discretion of the

Government. Since the power has been vested in the

Government, it is expected that the Government

will exercise that power in a responsible way and

only when it is necessary in the circumstances of

the case, and will not, merely for the fun of it,

start altering constituencies and including Gram

Sabha from one constituency in another."

Upon the view that the State Government had the power

to alter the constituencies in a block under s. 106 of the

Act, as and when, it considered fit, the High Court in

Kalyansingh's case held that the exercise of the power by

the Government cannot be challenged except on proof of mala

fides. In that case, since mala fides were alleged the High

Court declined to invalidate a notification issued by the

Government purporting to alter the constituencies of a

block, and added:

"Since power had been exercised which the

Government did possess, it must be assumed that it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

was for good reasons, although the reasons have

not been expressed."

In the present case, however, the High Court has left the

question of mala fides untouched.

902

In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is

necessary to deal with the scheme of the Act as it stood at

the relevant time. The Act provides for the formation of a

three tier Panchayati Raj. At the basic level, there is a

Gram Panchayat for a village or group of villages. S.3 of

the Act provides that the State Government may, by

notification, establish a Gram Sabha for a village or group

of adjoining villages having a population of 1000 or more

and shall specify the name by which the Gram Sabha shall be

known and the limits of the area within its jurisdiction.

For every Gram Sabha there has to be a Gram Panchayat, as

enjoined by s.10, constituted in accordance with the

provisions of the Act. S.11 enacts that a Gram Panchayat

shall consist of 10 elected members and similar additional

members depending upon the population, but not exceeding 20

in all. The second level is constituted by what is known as

the Janapada Panchayat. Sub-s.(1) of s.103 provides that the

State Government may, by notification, divide a district

into blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that the

notification under sub-s.(1) shall specify the name by which

the block shall be known and shall define the limits of the

area comprised therein. S.104 provides that for every block,

there shall be a Janapada Panchayat having jurisdiction over

the block. S.105 lays down that every Janapada Panchayat

shall consist of such number of members not being less than

15 and no more than 20, as the State Government may, by

notification, specify. S.130 directs that subject to general

or special orders as may be issued by the State Government,

it shall be the duty of a Janapada Panchayat, so far as the

Janapada Panchayat fund at its disposal will allow, to make

reasonable provision for the matters anumerated therein.

S.133 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and

the Rules made thereunder, every Janapada Panchayat shall

supervise the working of Gram Panchayats within the block

and shall render such assistance within the limits of its

resources as may be necessary. At the apex of the three tier

panchayat hierarchy, there is a Zila Panchayat. S.166

provides that for every district there shall be established

by the State Government, by notification, a Zila Panchayat

having jurisdiction over the district. The powers and

functions of the Zila Panchayat are described in s.181. Sub-

s.(1) of s.181 provides that subject to the provisions of

the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it shall be the

duty of the Zila Panchayat to exercise its powers and

functions in relation to subjects enumerated therein. Cl.(1)

thereof provides that it shall be the duty of the Zila

Panchayat to encourage the establishment and foster the

development of Gram Panchayats in the district, Cl.(ii) to

examine and approve the budget of the Janapada Panchayats in

the district, (iii) to

903

distribute the funds allotted to the district by the Central

and State Government among the Janapada Panchayats in the

district, and cl.(iv) enables the Zila Panchayat to

supervise the activities of the Janapada Panchayats.

Under the scheme of the Act, the Gram Panchayats at the

base and the Janapada Panchayat at the second tier in a

block are both elected bodies. There is however a vital

difference in the mode of election to these bodies. The

members of a Gram Panchayat are directly elected by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

electorate in a Gram Sabha area while those of a Janapada

Panchayat for a block are indirectly elected by an electoral

college comprising of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayats in

such block. The difference in the mode of election is

brought out by these provisions. S.12 of the Act lays down

that the election and co-option of members of the Gram

Panchayats shall be in accordance with the rules made under

the Act. In accordance therewith, the State Government

framed the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-

option Rules, 1963. Chapter II provides for formation of

wards and for reservation of seats for members of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Chapter III for preparation of

voters' lists, Chapter IV provides for the administrative

machinery for the conduct of elections, Chapter V regulates

the manner in which elections are to be held, etc. As

against this, sub-s.(1) of s.105 provides that every

Janapada Panchayat shall consist of such number of members

not being less than 15 and not more than 30, as the State

Government may, by notification, specify. Sub-s.(2) therefor

provides that every Janapada Panchayat shall be composed of

(i) elected members, (ii) one member representing the

Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils and Notified Area

Committees within the block elected by the Councillors of

such authorities from amongst themselves and (iii) all

members of the State Legislative Assembly returned from

constituencies which wholly or partly fall within the block.

As already stated sub-s.(1) of s.103 provides that the State

Government may, by notification, divide a district into

blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that the notification

under sub-s.(1) shall specify the name by which the block

shall be known and shall define the limits of the area

comprised therein. S.106 of the Act which is relevant for

our purposes provides for a division of a block into

constituencies and runs thus:

"106. Division of block into constituencies -

(1) Subject to the provision of sub-section(2) the

State Government shall by notification -

904

(a) divide a block into constituencies;

(b) fix the number of members to be elected from

each constituency.

(2) The ratio between the number of the members to

be elected from each constituency in a block and

the population of that constituency as ascertained

in the last preceding census, shall so far as

practicable, be the same throughout the block,

(3) Where there are members belonging to the

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes residing

within the block, such number of seats shall be

reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes on the Janapada Panchayat as

shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same

proportion to the total member of seats in the

Janapada Panchayat as the population of the

members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled

Tribes in the block bears to the total population

of such area."

Sub-s.(1) of s.107 provides that for every block there

shall be a list of voters which shall be prepared

constituency-wise by the Collector or by any other officer

authorized by him in that behalf. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides

that every Panch of a Gram Panchayat situate within the

block shall be entitled to be registered in the list of

voters of the block provided that no person shall be

entitled to be registered in the list of voters for more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

than one constituency. Sub-s. (3) provides that every Panch

whose name is registered in the list of voters prepared

under sub-s.(1) shall be eligible to be an elected member of

the Janapada Panchayat. S.109 provides that subject to the

provisions of the Act the election and co-option of a member

of a Janapada Panchayat shall be in accordance with the

rules made under the Act. In accordance therewith, the State

Government framed the Madhya Pradesh Janapada Panchayat

Election and Co-option Rules 1963. R.3 provides that the

Collector or any other officer authorised by him shall

subject to the provisions of s.107 cause a voters' list to

be prepared for each constituency by including therein the

names of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayats situate within

the constituencies in a block. As already mentioned, at the

apex is the Zila Panchayat in a district which is a

statutory body constituted under s.167 comprising of (a)

Presidents of Janapada Panchayat within the district, (b)

members of the Lok

905

Sabha representing Parliamentary constituencies wholly or

partly forming part of the district, (c) members of the

Rajya Sabha returned from the State and ordinarily residing

in the district, (d) members of the State Legislative

Assembly representing Assembly constituencies wholly or

partly forming part of the district, and (e) district

officers representing various departments of the State

Government.

A close and combined reading of these provisions and

the other provisions of the Act which follow hereafter make

it quite evident that the actual control over the Gram

Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada Panchayat for

the block. It would also appear that the result of the

elections to the Janapada Panchayat would depend upon the

nature of the electoral roll prepared for each constituency

in a block. If the State Government were to issue a

notification under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act for

redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the

process of election has started, it would necessarily change

the whole pattern of voting in the election of members to

the Janapada Panchayat. This is plainly a typical case of

gerrymandering. As is well-known, 'gerrymander' is an

American expression which has taken root in the English

language, meaning to arrange election districts so as to

five an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a

redistribution act or to manipulate constituencies

generally.

Question of delimitation of constituencies in a block

under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is connected with the

holding of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat.

Question of delimitation of such constituencies would

necessarily arise when there is a alteration in the limits

of Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361 of the Act which

brings about a change in a block alteration in the limits of

the block under sub-s.(4) of s.370. It is not necessary for

us to go into details except to refer to certain relevant

provisions. Amalgamation, splitting up and alteration in the

limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried out after following

the procedure prescribed by ss.360 and 361. S.362 provides

that where a notification under s.361 has been issued the

State Government may make such consequential orders as it

may deem fit in respect of (a) the constitution of the Gram

Sabha and the Gram Panchayat for the altered area where a

local area has been included in or excluded from a Gram

Sabha; (b) for the dissolution of the existing Gram Sabhas

which have been amalgamated and the Gram Panchayats or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

subordinate agencies

906

thereof, as the case may be, and the constitution of the

amalgamated Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat thereafter; (c)

the dissolution of the Gram Sabhas split up and the

constitution of the Gram Sabhas established in its place and

the constitution of the Gram Panchayats thereafter and

matters ancillary thereto.

Alteration of the limits of a block can be effected by

the State Government after following the procedure

prescribed in s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(1) of s.370 provides

that the State Government may by notification, signify its

intention to alter the limits of a block by including

therein any local area in the vicinity thereof or by

excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein. Sub-

s.(2) provides that every such notification shall define the

limits of the local area which is intended to be included in

or excluded from a block. Sub s(3) provides that any

inhabitant of the area or areas effected by a notification

under sub-s.(1) may, if he objects to anything therein

contained, submit his objection in writing to the State

Government within 60 days of the publication of the

notification and the State Government shall take his

objection into consideration. Sub-s.(4) provides that when

60 days from the date of publication of the notification

have expired and the State Government has considered and

passed orders on such objections as may have been submitted

to it within the said period the State Government may, by

notification, include the local area or any part thereof in

the block or exclude it therefrom. s.371 provides that on

the issue of a notification under sub-s.(4) of s.370, the

State Government may make such consequential orders as it

may deem fit in respect of (i) the constitution of Janapada

Panchayat for the altered area, etc. When there is an

alteration in the limits of a Gram Sabha area under sub-

s.(2) of s.361 or in the limits of a block under sub-s.(4)

of s.370, it may be that the State Government would have to

issue the requisite notification for delimitation of the

constituencies of such altered block under sub-s.(1) of

s.106 of the Act.

In the instant case, there was no alteration either in

the limits of the Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361

or of the block under sub-s.(4) of s.370 and therefore no

occasion for the State Government to issue a fresh

notification under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act purporting

to restructure the constituencies of the block. We have no

doubt in our mind that the impugned notification dated

November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government seeking to

alter the constituencies of the blocks after the

907

process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had

started and that by the Collector dated November 29, 1970

for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the members

of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala

fide and intended and meant to gain control over the

Janapada Panchayat and were therefore liable to be struck

down.

The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into

constituencies under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is to

ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation

to the Gram Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat

and the Zila Panchayat. The result of any election under a

majority system depends in fact not only on the way people

vote but on the way their votes are distributed among the

constituencies. It was therefore impermissible for the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

Government to redistribute the constituencies in the Manasa

Block under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act so as to give an

unfair advantage to the party in power to gain control over

the Janapada Panchayat and in turn over the Zila Panchayat.

This is precisely what has happened in this case as is clear

from the narration of facts. Although the High Court has not

touched upon this aspect, it is quite apparent that the act

of gerrymandering was to manipulate the result of the

Janapada Panchayat and thereby materially affect the

constitution of the Zila Panchayat.

Turning to the next question, it is necessary to state

that the State Government in exercise of the powers under

ss.105 and 106 of the Act has issued a composite

notification dated August 31, 1965 signifying its intention

to divide the Manasa Block into twenty constituencies from

which the representatives of the Janapada Panchayat were to

be elected and invited objections within 30 days from the

date of publication of the said notification. After

consideration of the objections raised the State Government

by notification dated September 26, 1969 divided the block

into twenty constituencies with one representative to be

elected from each constituency. As already stated the

elections to the Gram Panchayats were held on November 8,

1970 and on November 14, 1970 the Collector notified the

result of the elections and the Gram Panchayats assumed

office on that date. All of a sudden, while the process of

election of members to the Janapada Panchayat was on, the

State Government issued the impugned notification dated

November 25, 1970 under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act

seeking to alter the constituencies of the block. Normally,

when the State Government intends to later or modify the

limits of a block, it has to follow the procedure laid down

in s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(3) thereof confers a right on

908

the person effected to raise objections in writing to the

proposed alteration and costs a duty on the State Government

to consider such objections. It is only upon compliance of

the mandatory requirements of sub-s.(3) that the State

Government can proceed to issue a notification under sub-

s.(4) of s.370 for the alteration of the limits of a block.

That is the normal procedure provided which implies the

giving of an opportunity to the persons affected. There was

really no occasion for the State Government to have issued

the impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 seeking to

restructure the constituencies of the block in the midst of

the election. Even if there was such a power, the State

Government was in duty bound to publish the proposal giving

an opportunity to the persons affected to raise their

objections to the proposed alteration. The impugned

notification dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State

Government under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is therefore

totally invalid.

The result therefore is that the appeal fails and is

dismissed with costs.

A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.

909