BHUTAN CHANDRA PRADHANI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art. 226 of the Constitution is by the petitioner, who is an ex -President of the Golokganj Anchalik Panchayat, since dissolved. A Rule was obtained by him against an order of the Governor of 31st August, 1971 passed under Section 140 -B of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1959, as amended (Assam Act XXIV of 1959), hereinafter called 'the Act', dissolving the Golokganj Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Goalpara with immediate effect "as Government is satisfied that there is a deadlock in the functioning of the said Anchalik Panchayat".

(2.) THE first meeting of the Anchalik Panchayat, after election, was held on 3rd January 1969, and ordinarily under Section 19 of the Act it continues to function for a period of four years till a new body is constituted. There is a provision for extension of the life of the Panchayat under that section. It appears the Panchayat had to be superseded once by the Governor for a period of three months on 8th January 1971 under Section 140(1) of the Act, after asking the Panchayat to show cause against supersession. The Deputy Commissioner reported about the serious situation in the Anchalik Panchayat resulting in the complete deadlock of the functioning of the body and recommended dissolution. Even so, the Government gave the body a chance to rehabilitate and function properly and withdrew the order of supersession on 7th April, 1971. As in the case of the budget of 1970 -71, the Panchayat could not pass the budget of 1971 -72 also, although it held four successive meetings between 5th May, 1971 and 20th July, 1971. As a matter of fact, the budget of 1971 -72 should have been passed within 15th of May 1971 (paragraph 2 of the counter -affidavit). On account of the deadlock created due to non -passing of the annual budget, the Governor passed the impugned order dissolving the Panchayat. Hence this writ application.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Das that since, inter alia, dissolution is the common content in both the sections, the Panchayat in this case has been discriminated by the Governor resorting to Section 140 -B instead of S. 140(1) where there is a provision for giving sufficient opportunity to show cause against the action. He submits that Section 140 -B is, therefore, clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He sought to depend entirely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dial v. State of Punjab. : AIR 1965 SC 1518, to support his submission. That was a case in which the Supreme Court had to deal with the provisions of Section 14(e) and S. 16(1) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911. On a perusal of the provisions, the Supreme Court observed as follows: