High Court of Chhattisgarh Directs Collector to Address Representation on Panchayat Delimitation: “Grievances Must Be Decided in Accordance with Law”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the writ petition filed by residents of the village Kevtara. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to file a fresh representation before the Collector of District Bemetara. The court further directed the Collector to resolve their grievances regarding the delimitation of the panchayat within 15 days of receiving the representation. The decision must be taken strictly in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

Facts:

1. The petitioners are residents of Kevtara village, which is administratively linked with Padkitola village.
2. The petitioners approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the notification issued by the Collector, District Bemetara, on October 25, 2024. This notification was seen as contrary to legal provisions.
3. They argued that a prior notification issued on October 14, 2024, was more favorable as it outlined a framework for creating a separate panchayat for Kevtara.
4. According to the petitioners, Kevtara has a population of 1,110 voters, and Padkitola has 433 voters, making the total voter base exceed the 1,000-voter threshold set by the state for panchayat delimitation. This combined population, they claimed, creates significant administrative challenges.
5. The villagers had submitted an application to the concerned Minister on September 20, 2024, seeking the creation of a separate panchayat for Kevtara. However, the final notification issued on October 25, 2024, did not address their concerns.
6. The petitioners sought an annulment of the October 25 notification and the restoration of the earlier notification.

Issues:

1. Validity of Notification: Was the notification issued by the Collector on October 25, 2024, legally valid, and did it comply with state guidelines for panchayat delimitation?
2. Administrative Challenges: Should Kevtara be granted a separate panchayat based on population and governance needs?
3. Proper Redressal of Grievances: Were the petitioners’ concerns adequately addressed by the authorities?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Population Threshold: The petitioners emphasized that the combined population of Kevtara and Padkitola far exceeds the 1,000-voter limit prescribed by state authorities. As a result, administrative efficiency and development are hindered.
2. Local Development: They argued that separating Kevtara from Padkitola and creating an independent panchayat would facilitate better governance and faster development for both villages.
3. Procedural Flaws in Notification: The petitioners contended that the final notification issued by the Collector was contrary to law and ignored their legitimate request for separation.
4. Willingness for Representation: The petitioners expressed their readiness to file a fresh representation if directed by the court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. No Objection: The State counsel did not oppose the limited prayer of the petitioners for filing a fresh representation before the Collector.
2. Legal Compliance: The respondents emphasized that any decision regarding the petitioners’ grievances must strictly comply with the applicable legal provisions.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Panchayat Delimitation: Under the Panchayat Raj Act and related state laws, the delimitation of panchayats must align with prescribed population thresholds and administrative needs. The petitioners’ demand for separation based on population exceeds the stated threshold, suggesting a valid basis for their grievance.
2. Administrative Fairness: The law requires authorities to address local governance challenges efficiently and equitably. The petitioners’ argument for creating a separate panchayat for Kevtara aligns with these principles.
3. Procedural Justice: The court highlighted the importance of following due process and addressing grievances in a time-bound and lawful manner. By directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation, the court ensured adherence to procedural norms.

Precedent Analysis:

Although no specific judgments were cited in this case, the court’s approach reflects established principles in administrative and constitutional law:

1. Duty of Authorities: Administrative bodies are obligated to address grievances promptly and fairly.
2. Judicial Oversight: Courts have the power to ensure that public authorities act within the bounds of their statutory powers and in accordance with the law.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Limited Scope of Petition: The court noted that the petitioners sought only limited relief in the form of permission to file a fresh representation before the Collector.
2. No Opposition from State: The State counsel did not oppose the petitioners’ request, which further justified granting the relief sought.
3. Fair Resolution: The court emphasized that the Collector must consider the petitioners’ representation in strict accordance with the law and resolve the matter expeditiously.

Conclusion:

The court disposed of the petition with the following directives:

1. The petitioners are permitted to file a fresh representation before the Collector, District Bemetara, within 15 days.
2. The Collector is directed to decide on the representation strictly in accordance with the law and within a reasonable timeframe.
3. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Implications:

1. Strengthening Administrative Accountability: The court’s order reinforces the need for public authorities to act transparently and respond to citizens’ grievances.
2. Fair Governance: The decision highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that local governance mechanisms operate efficiently and in accordance with legal norms.
3. Empowerment of Villages: If implemented, the separation of Kevtara into a new panchayat could improve governance and development prospects for both Kevtara and Padkitola.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Affirms Conviction for Cheque Bounce Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act: “Accused Cannot Complain of Prejudice If Absent Without Justification”