Per incuriam and sub silentio rulings cannot undo a completed bifurcation notification without statutory power to withdraw it.

A prior writ order was treated as not having validly set aside the Gram Panchayat bifurcation notification because it proceeded on an incorrect factual premise and in ignorance of the governing bifurcation rules, making it susceptible to being treated as per incuriam or sub silentio. The District Collector also lacked statutory power to withdraw an already issued notification, and later rescission of the rules did not undo a bifurcation already completed under the existing framework. The withdrawal order was therefore invalid, the bifurcation stood, and elections to the two resulting Gram Panchayats were directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order in the related writ petition had validly set aside the bifurcation notification dated 12-5-1995. (ii) Whether the District Collector had power to withdraw the notification and whether the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat had to be given effect to, with consequential elections.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order in the related writ petition had validly set aside the bifurcation notification dated 12-5-1995.

Analysis: The earlier order was rendered on an incorrect factual premise and without notice of the governing bifurcation rules already in force. The decision proceeded on the footing that the rules were framed later and also related to a different village. A decision rendered in ignorance of a relevant statutory or delegated legislative provision may be treated as per incuriam, and where the precise legal point was not perceived or decided, it is sub silentio. On that basis, the earlier order could not be treated as having conclusively set aside the bifurcation notification.

Conclusion: The earlier order did not validly set aside the notification dated 12-5-1995.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Collector had power to withdraw the notification and whether the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat had to be given effect to, with consequential elections.

Analysis: The Collector had no power under the Act or the Rules to revoke a notification once issued. Rescission of the bifurcation rules did not undo a bifurcation already completed under the then-existing legal framework. Since the notification had not been validly annulled and the withdrawal lacked authority, the bifurcation stood, and the respondents were required to act on that position by holding elections to the two Gram Panchayats.

Conclusion: The withdrawal order was invalid, the bifurcation stood confirmed, and directions for elections were warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in substance by invalidating the withdrawal order, affirming the earlier bifurcation, and directing the authorities to hold elections to the two resulting Gram Panchayats.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification effectuating bifurcation cannot be treated as annulled by a prior order rendered per incuriam or sub silentio, and an administrative authority without statutory power cannot withdraw a completed notification merely because the governing rules were later rescinded.

---