NARANBHAI KHEMDAS PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a litigant claim that his matter be not decided at the admission stage and be decided with certain other matters admitted on earlier occassion? While answering this question, it has become necessary to examine and understand how a decision of the Supreme Court is required to be read, interpreted and applied to other cases. Those questions arise in the background of the facts that follow.

(2.) Petitioner is Up-Sarpanch of Langranaj Gram Panchayat, which has been ordered to be superseded under Section 297 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act by the Development Commissioner, respondent No. 2 herein as per his order dated Sept. 14, 1987. The Panchayat is superseded on the ground that it has failed to pass the budget for the year 1987-88. In the meeting of the Panchayat held on March 27, 1987 the budget estimates were placed for approval. Majority members of the Panchayat did not approve the same and thus the budget could not be passed. Show cause notice dated June 15, 1987 was served upon the Panchayat. The Panchayat was called upon to explain as to why it should not be superseded, since it was incompetent and since it had failed to perform its obligatory duty and the functions entrusted to it. Hearing of the notice was adjourned by the Development Commissioner from time to time. During the pendency of the hearing before the Development Commissioner, one more chance was given to the Panchayat to place the budget estimates before General Body of the Panchayat and get the same approved. The Panchayat had convened another meeting on Aug. 26, 1987. In that meeting also majority of the members of the Panchayat did not approve the budget estimates and thus the budget was not passed The Executive Committee of the District Panchayat, Mehsana also opined that the Panchayat should be superseded. Thus, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Panchayat and after following required procedure, the Development Commissioner passed the aforesaid order superseding the Panchayat under the provisions of Section 297 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Panchayat has been superseded for a period of one year from the date of the order. This order is challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition, inter alia on the ground that having regard to the provisions of Section 104(3) of the Act, it is not obligatory upon Panchayat to pass budget and there fore provisions of Section 297 are not attracted.

(3.) At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that other matters being Special Civil Application Nos. 4459/81, 3782/82 and 12/83 have been admitted and they are pending. It is submitted that in all these matters, identical question with regard to the interpretation of Section 104(3) is involved. in view of this position, it is submitted that this petition also should be admitted and order rejecting the same should not be passed at this stage. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1345. The judgment is a very short one and it reads as follows :