1965 (10) TMI 65 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Panchayat Samithi's power in Health Centre location dispute

GADDE VENKATESWARA RAO Versus GOVT. OF A.P.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant had the locus standi to file the petition as he was prejudicially affected by the Government's order. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of the appellant.2. Validity of the Government's order under Section 62 and Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959.3. Requirement of notice before passing the order.4. Authority of the Government versus the Panchayat Samithi in establishing and locating Primary Health Centres.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Appellant:The appellant, as the President of the Panchayat Samithi of Dharmajigudem, represented the village in all dealings concerning the location of the Primary Health Centre. The appellant had the right to maintain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution because he was authorized to act on behalf of the committee that collected funds for the public purpose. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had been prejudicially affected by the Government's order and thus had the right to file the petition.2. Validity of the Government's Order under Section 62 and Section 72 of the Act:The Government's order dated March 7, 1962, was made under Section 62 of the Act, which allows the Government to cancel any resolution passed by a Panchayat Samithi if it is not legally passed or is in excess of the powers conferred by the Act. The Supreme Court held that the order dated March 7, 1962, was indeed an order cancelling the resolution of the Panchayat Samithi and thus fell under Section 62. Consequently, it could not be reviewed under Section 72, which only allows for the review of orders made under Section 72(1).3. Requirement of Notice Before Passing the Order:The Government's order dated March 7, 1962, was passed without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, violating the mandatory provision of Section 62(2) of the Act. Similarly, the order dated April 18, 1963, was made without giving an opportunity to the representatives of Dharmajigudem who were prejudicially affected by the order. The Supreme Court held that both orders were not legally passed due to the lack of notice.4. Authority of the Government versus the Panchayat Samithi:The Supreme Court examined whether the Government had the authority to make the order under the relevant rules made under Section 69 of the Act. The Court found that the rules, which made the Panchayat Samithi a mere recommendatory body and vested the final authority in the Government, were inconsistent with Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 vested the statutory power to establish and maintain Primary Health Centres in the Panchayat Samithi. The Court held that the Government could not override this statutory power through the rules.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The Panchayat Samithi had the authority to pass resolutions regarding the location of the Centre, and its final resolution was to locate it at Lingapalem. Both Government orders were not legally passed due to procedural violations. The High Court rightly refused to exercise its discretionary power to quash the Government's order dated April 18, 1963, as it would have restored an illegal order. The appeal was dismissed without costs.