PETITIONER:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEVILAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1985
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
MADON, D.P.
CITATION:
1986 AIR 434 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 894
1986 SCC (1) 657 1985 SCALE (2)1470
ACT:
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 – Sections 106, 361
and 370 – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election and Co-option
Rules, 1963 – Rule 3 - Modification or alteration of the
Constituencies of a block once delimited by a Notification
u/s 106 after the process of election of members of Janapada
Panchayat has started - Powers of the State Government -
What are – Affording an opportunity to electorate to raise
objection – Whether mandatory and necessary.
HEADNOTE:
After the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the
State under s.3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962,
the State Government in accordance with s.103 divided
Mandsaur District into eight blocks with Manasa Block as one
of them where a Janapada Panchayat was to be established.
Under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the State Government by a
notification dated September 26, 1969 divided this Block
into twenty constituencies from which the representatives of
the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa were to be elected. After the
Constituencies were notified, the elections to the Gram
Panchayats in the block were completed on November 8, 1970
and duly notified by the Collector on November 14, 1970. On
the same day, the new Gram Panchayats assumed office. On
November 25, 1970, the State Government published a
notification under s. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution
of the constituencies of the block. On November 29, 1970,
the Collector also issued a notification reallocating the
reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
The respondent, Sarpanch of a Gram Sabha, qualified to
contest the elections of the President and Vice-President of
the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition under Art.
226 challenging the validity of notifications dated November
25, 1970 and November 29, 1970 on the grounds : (1) that the
State Government had no statutory power under s. 106 of the
Act to alter or modify the constituencies once they had been
notified and the process of election had started ; (2) that
the issuance of the notification was mala fide and
politically motivated with a view to further the prospects
of the party in power, and (3) that
895
assuming the State Government was empowered to alter or
modify the Constituencies of a block during the progress of
election to the Janapada Panchayats, the notification for
re-distribution of the constituencies was illegal and
inoperative as it had been published without affording an
opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection.
The appellant State contested the petition contending :
(1) that the Gram Panchayats and Janapada Panchayats are two
distinct and separate entities, and the Act envisages
different procedures for holding independent elections and
merely because the Gram Panchayat elections were over it
could not be said that a notification modifying the
constituencies of the Gram Panchayats could not be issued
under s. 106; (2) that the notification seeking to alter the
constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa Block alone but
to many other blocks in the district and, therefore, the
issuance of the notification was not actuated with political
motives, and (3) that the provisions of ss. 105 and 106 do
not make it obligatory on the part of the State Government
to afford an opportunity of raising objections.
The High Court quashed the notifications and held that
when the process of election of members to the Janapada
Panchayat starts, the State Government had no power to alter
or modify the constituencies of a block once delimited by a
notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106.
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant-
State it was contended that the view taken by the High Court
was in conflict with its earlier decision in Kalyansingh
Kathor & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., A.I.R.
1974 M.P. 84, wherein it was held that the exercise of the
power by the State Government cannot be challenged except on
proof of mala fides.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD : 1. The notification dated November 25, 1975
issued by the State Government under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act 1962 is in-valid. [908 C]
2. The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into
constituencies under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of the Act is to
ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation
to the Gram Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat
and the Zila
896
Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority
system depends in fact not only on the way people vote but
on the way their votes are distributed among the
constituencies. It was, therefore, impermissible for the
State Government to redistribute the constituencies in the
Manasa Block under sub-s.(1) of s. 106. [907 B-C]
3. A close and combined reading of the provisions of
the Act make it quite evident that the actual control over
the Gram Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada
Panchayat for the block and the result of the elections to
the Janapada Panchyat would depend upon the nature of the
electoral roll prepared for each constituency in a block. If
the State Government were to issue a notification under sub-
s.(1) of s. 106 for redistribution of the constituencies in
a block after the process of election had started, it would
necessarily change the whole pattern of voting in the
election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. This is
plainly a typical case of gerrymandering, which means to
arrange elections districts so as to given an unfair
advantage to the party in power by means of redistribution
act or to manipulate constituencies generally. [905 B-D]
4. Delimitation of the constituencies in a block under
sub-s. (1) of s. 106 is connected with the holding of
election of members to the Janapada Panchayat and
delimitation of such constituencies would arise when there
is alteration in the limits of Gram Sabha area under sub-s.
(2) of s. 361 of the Act which brings about a change in a
block or alteration in the limits of the block under sub-s.
(4) of s. 370. Amalgamation, splitting up and alteration in
the limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried out after
following the procedure prescribed by ss. 360 and 361.
Alteration of the limits of a block can be affected by the
State Government after following the procedure prescribed in
s.370 of the Act. [905 E-F; 906 B]
In the instant case, there was no alteration either in
the limits of the Gram Sabhas area under sub-s. (2) of s.
361 or of the block under sub-s.(4) of s. 370 and,
therefore, there was no occasion for the State Government to
issue a fresh notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106
restructuring the constituencies of the block. The
notification issued by the State Government seeking to alter
constituencies of the block after the process of election of
members to the Janapada Panchayat had started and the
notification by the Collector for the reallocation of the
reserved seats for the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended and
meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchyat. [906 F-H;
907 A]
897
5. When there is an alteration in the limits of a Gram
Sabha area under sub-s. (2) of s. 361 or in the limits of a
block under sub-s. (4) of s. 370, it may be that the State
Government would have to issue the requisite notification
for delimitation of the constituencies of such altered block
under sub-s.(1) of s. 106 of the Act. It is only upon
compliance of the mandatory requirements of sub-s. 3 then
the State Government can proceed to issue a notification.
[906 E-F]
6. It is only upon compliance of the mandatory
requirements of sub-s. 3 that the State Government can
proceed to issue a notification under sub-s. (4) of s. 370
for the alteration of the limits of a block. This procedure
implies the giving of an opportunity to the persons
affected. [908 A-B]
In the instant case, there was really no occasion for
the State Government to have issued the notification dated
November 25, 1970 seeking to restructure the constituencies
of the block in the midst of the elections. Even if there
was such a power, the State Government was in duty bound to
publish the proposal giving an opportunity to the persons
affected to raise their objections to the proposed
alteration.[908 B-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2472 of
1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1972 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 21
of 1971.
H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
S.K. Dholakia, S.K. Gambhir, Ashok Mahajan and Mrs.
Sunita Kriplani for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. The issue involved in this appeal on
certificate from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court dated January 4, 1972 is as to the powers of the
State Government under s. 106 of the Madhya Pradesh
Panchayats Act, 1962 to modify or alter the constituencies
of a block once delimited by a notification issued
thereunder after the process of election of members of the
Janapada Panchayat has started; particularly, without
affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any
objection. On the question involved, conflicting views have
been
898
expressed by two Division Benches of the High Court and the
High Court certifies that the question raised is one of
frequent occurrence and great importance.
By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the
High Court has held that the provisions of the Act do not
confer any power on the State Government to modify or alter
the constituencies once fixed by a notification issued under
sub-s. (1) of s.106 of the Act and fixing the number of
members to be elected from each constituency. It accordingly
struck down the impugned notification issued by the State
Government dated November 25, 1970 under ss. 105 and 106 of
the Act purporting to restructure the constituencies of the
Manasa Block.
Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. After
the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the State under
s. 3 of the Act, the State Government in accordance with s.
103 divided the Mandsaur District into eight blocks with
Manasa Block as one of them where a Janapada Panchayat was
to be established. Under ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the
State Government by a notification dated September 26, 1969
divided this Block into twenty constituencies from which the
representatives of the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa were to be
elected, with one representative to be elected from each
constituency. After the constituencies were notified, the
elections to the Gram Panchayats in the block were completed
on November 8, 1970 and they were duly notified by the
Collector, Mandsaur on November 14, 1970. On the same day,
the new Gram Panchayat assumed office. On November 25, 1970,
the State Government published a notification purporting to
be under s. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution of the
constituencies of the block. On November 29, 1970, the
Collector also issued a notification reallocating the
reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. The respondent who had been elected as the Sarpanch
of the Gram Sabha, Alhed and was thus qualified to contest
the elections of the President and Vice-President of the
Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition in the High
Court under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the
validity of the impugned notification dated November 25,
1970 issued by the State Government for re-delimitation of
the constituencies of the block and the notification by the
Collector dated November 29, 1970 for the reallocation of
the reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Schedule
Tribes. In assailing the validity of the impugned
notification dated November 25, 1970, the respondent
pleaded, inter alia, that the State Government had not
statutory power under s. 106 of the Act to alter or modify
the
899
constituencies once the same had been notified and the
process of election had started, that the issuance of the
impugned notification was mala fide and politically
motivated with a view to further the prospects of the party
in power and that, even otherwise, assuming that there was
such a power in the State Government to alter or modify the
constituencies of a block during the progress of election to
the Janapada Panchayat, the impugned notification for re-
distribution of the constituencies for the Manasa was
illegal and inoperative as it had been published without
affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any
objection. The respondent, accordingly, sought a writ in the
nature of mandamus and other appropriate writs, orders and
directions under Art.226 of the Constitution directing the
State Government to forebear from giving effect to the
impugned notifications.
The appellants contested the writ petition filed by the
respondent on various grounds, namely : (1) The Gram
Panchayats and Janapada Panchayats are two distinct and
separate entities and the Act envisages independent
elections to be held for the same. (2) The scheme of the Act
provides that the Act prescribes for different procedures
for the holding of elections to the Gram Panchayat elections
were over on November 14, 1970, it could not be said that a
notification modifying the constituencies of the Gram
Panchayats could not be issued under s. 106 of the Act. (3)
The impugned notification seeking to alter the
constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa Block alone but
to many other blocks in the district and therefore the
allegation that the issuance of the notification was
actuated with political motives was wholly without basis.
And (4) The provisions contained in ss. 105 and 106 of the
Act do not make it obligatory on the part of the State
Government to afford an opportunity of raising objections
and therefore the State Government was justified in issuing
the impugned notification.
On a construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of the Act, a
Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under
appeal held that the State Government has no power to alter
or modify the constituencies of a block once delimited by a
notification issued thereunder. The High Court referred to
the scheme of the Act, particularly to s. 103 which
contemplates the division of blocks into constituencies. In
the context, it observed that looking at the provisions of
s. 360 or s. 370 of the Act, it was evident that where the
legislature thought fit it had expressly conferred powers on
the State Government for altering
900
the limits. It referred to s. 360 of the Act which provides
for alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas and s. 370 which
provides for alteration in the limits of the blocks and for
the purpose of alteration of such limits both of which also
provide for the following of a particular procedure. The
High Court observed that on the contrary the provisions
contained in s. 106 nowhere contemplate the conferral of any
such power on the State Government for alteration of
constituencies once fixed and notified under ss. 105 and 106
of the Act. It stated that s. 107 was of no avail as it
deals with the constitution of a Janapada Panchayat and does
not relate to the delimitation of constituencies as that is
specifically provided for in s. 106 of the Act. It then
added :
“The only question deserving consideration is, as
stated above, about the powers of the State
Government to do it. Consequently, as discussed
above, there is no provision empowering the State
Government to alter the constituencies once
prescribed and notified under the provisions of s.
106 of the Act. Therefore, the notification issued
by the State Government, published in the Gazette
dated 25th November, 1970 is beyond the powers of
the State Government and has, therefore, to be
quashed.”
These observations must, in our opinion, be construed to
mean that when the process of election of members to the
Janapada Panchayat starts, the State Government has no power
to alter or modify the constituencies of a block once
delimited by a notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 106 of
the Act.
In the appeal, two questions mainly arise, namely 
1)
Whether the High Court was right in holding that the
provisions of the Act do not contemplate for any amendment
of a notification issued earlier under Sub-s. (1) of s. 106
of the Act dividing the block into constituencies or fixing
the number of members to be elected from each constituency.
And (2) Whether the impugned notification for re-structuring
the constituencies of the Manasa Block was invalid as it had
been issued without affording an opportunity to the
electoral to raise any objections. We shall deal with the
questions in that sequence.
It is urged that the view taken by the High Court was
plainly in conflict with the view expressed by an earlier
Division Bench in Kalyansingh Rathor & Ors. v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. A.I.R. 1972 M.P. 84. Bishambhar Dayal,
CJ.,
901
speaking for the Division Bench, repelled the contention
that the State Government had no power to modify or alter
the Constituencies in a block once fixed by a notification
under s. 106 of the Act and stated :
“Constituencies could not be unchangeable for
ever. So far as Sections 360 and 370 are
concerned, they relate to an addition to or
subtraction from the area of a Gram Sabha or a
particular block. The fixation of constituencies
is not a matter of adding to or subtracting from a
particular Gram Sabha or block. It is a matter of
redistribution of a Gram Sabha into
constituencies. That may be necessitated by
several reasons from time to time e.g. efflux of
population from one Gram Sabha to another or an
increase or decrease of population at one place or
another and so on. The Legislature did not
consider it necessary to provide any standard or
circumstances under which only such an amendment
could be made by the Government. The power to make
amendments in the constituencies in the same block
was, therefore, left in the discretion of the
Government. Since the power has been vested in the
Government, it is expected that the Government
will exercise that power in a responsible way and
only when it is necessary in the circumstances of
the case, and will not, merely for the fun of it,
start altering constituencies and including Gram
Sabha from one constituency in another.”
Upon the view that the State Government had the power
to alter the constituencies in a block under s. 106 of the
Act, as and when, it considered fit, the High Court in
Kalyansingh’s case held that the exercise of the power by
the Government cannot be challenged except on proof of mala
fides. In that case, since mala fides were alleged the High
Court declined to invalidate a notification issued by the
Government purporting to alter the constituencies of a
block, and added:
“Since power had been exercised which the
Government did possess, it must be assumed that it
was for good reasons, although the reasons have
not been expressed.”
In the present case, however, the High Court has left the
question of mala fides untouched.
902
In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is
necessary to deal with the scheme of the Act as it stood at
the relevant time. The Act provides for the formation of a
three tier Panchayati Raj. At the basic level, there is a
Gram Panchayat for a village or group of villages. S.3 of
the Act provides that the State Government may, by
notification, establish a Gram Sabha for a village or group
of adjoining villages having a population of 1000 or more
and shall specify the name by which the Gram Sabha shall be
known and the limits of the area within its jurisdiction.
For every Gram Sabha there has to be a Gram Panchayat, as
enjoined by s.10, constituted in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. S.11 enacts that a Gram Panchayat
shall consist of 10 elected members and similar additional
members depending upon the population, but not exceeding 20
in all. The second level is constituted by what is known as
the Janapada Panchayat. Sub-s.(1) of s.103 provides that the
State Government may, by notification, divide a district
into blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that the
notification under sub-s.(1) shall specify the name by which
the block shall be known and shall define the limits of the
area comprised therein. S.104 provides that for every block,
there shall be a Janapada Panchayat having jurisdiction over
the block. S.105 lays down that every Janapada Panchayat
shall consist of such number of members not being less than
15 and no more than 20, as the State Government may, by
notification, specify. S.130 directs that subject to general
or special orders as may be issued by the State Government,
it shall be the duty of a Janapada Panchayat, so far as the
Janapada Panchayat fund at its disposal will allow, to make
reasonable provision for the matters anumerated therein.
S.133 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and
the Rules made thereunder, every Janapada Panchayat shall
supervise the working of Gram Panchayats within the block
and shall render such assistance within the limits of its
resources as may be necessary. At the apex of the three tier
panchayat hierarchy, there is a Zila Panchayat. S.166
provides that for every district there shall be established
by the State Government, by notification, a Zila Panchayat
having jurisdiction over the district. The powers and
functions of the Zila Panchayat are described in s.181. Sub-
s.(1) of s.181 provides that subject to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it shall be the
duty of the Zila Panchayat to exercise its powers and
functions in relation to subjects enumerated therein. Cl.(1)
thereof provides that it shall be the duty of the Zila
Panchayat to encourage the establishment and foster the
development of Gram Panchayats in the district, Cl.(ii) to
examine and approve the budget of the Janapada Panchayats in
the district, (iii) to
903
distribute the funds allotted to the district by the Central
and State Government among the Janapada Panchayats in the
district, and cl.(iv) enables the Zila Panchayat to
supervise the activities of the Janapada Panchayats.
Under the scheme of the Act, the Gram Panchayats at the
base and the Janapada Panchayat at the second tier in a
block are both elected bodies. There is however a vital
difference in the mode of election to these bodies. The
members of a Gram Panchayat are directly elected by the
electorate in a Gram Sabha area while those of a Janapada
Panchayat for a block are indirectly elected by an electoral
college comprising of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayats in
such block. The difference in the mode of election is
brought out by these provisions. S.12 of the Act lays down
that the election and co-option of members of the Gram
Panchayats shall be in accordance with the rules made under
the Act. In accordance therewith, the State Government
framed the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-
option Rules, 1963. Chapter II provides for formation of
wards and for reservation of seats for members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Chapter III for preparation of
voters’ lists, Chapter IV provides for the administrative
machinery for the conduct of elections, Chapter V regulates
the manner in which elections are to be held, etc. As
against this, sub-s.(1) of s.105 provides that every
Janapada Panchayat shall consist of such number of members
not being less than 15 and not more than 30, as the State
Government may, by notification, specify. Sub-s.(2) therefor
provides that every Janapada Panchayat shall be composed of
(i) elected members, (ii) one member representing the
Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils and Notified Area
Committees within the block elected by the Councillors of
such authorities from amongst themselves and (iii) all
members of the State Legislative Assembly returned from
constituencies which wholly or partly fall within the block.
As already stated sub-s.(1) of s.103 provides that the State
Government may, by notification, divide a district into
blocks. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides that the notification
under sub-s.(1) shall specify the name by which the block
shall be known and shall define the limits of the area
comprised therein. S.106 of the Act which is relevant for
our purposes provides for a division of a block into
constituencies and runs thus:
“106. Division of block into constituencies -
(1) Subject to the provision of sub-section(2) the
State Government shall by notification -
904
(a) divide a block into constituencies;
(b) fix the number of members to be elected from
each constituency.
(2) The ratio between the number of the members to
be elected from each constituency in a block and
the population of that constituency as ascertained
in the last preceding census, shall so far as
practicable, be the same throughout the block,
(3) Where there are members belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes residing
within the block, such number of seats shall be
reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes on the Janapada Panchayat as
shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same
proportion to the total member of seats in the
Janapada Panchayat as the population of the
members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes in the block bears to the total population
of such area.”
Sub-s.(1) of s.107 provides that for every block there
shall be a list of voters which shall be prepared
constituency-wise by the Collector or by any other officer
authorized by him in that behalf. Sub-s.(2) thereof provides
that every Panch of a Gram Panchayat situate within the
block shall be entitled to be registered in the list of
voters of the block provided that no person shall be
entitled to be registered in the list of voters for more
than one constituency. Sub-s. (3) provides that every Panch
whose name is registered in the list of voters prepared
under sub-s.(1) shall be eligible to be an elected member of
the Janapada Panchayat. S.109 provides that subject to the
provisions of the Act the election and co-option of a member
of a Janapada Panchayat shall be in accordance with the
rules made under the Act. In accordance therewith, the State
Government framed the Madhya Pradesh Janapada Panchayat
Election and Co-option Rules 1963. R.3 provides that the
Collector or any other officer authorised by him shall
subject to the provisions of s.107 cause a voters’ list to
be prepared for each constituency by including therein the
names of the Panchas of the Gram Panchayats situate within
the constituencies in a block. As already mentioned, at the
apex is the Zila Panchayat in a district which is a
statutory body constituted under s.167 comprising of (a)
Presidents of Janapada Panchayat within the district, (b)
members of the Lok
905
Sabha representing Parliamentary constituencies wholly or
partly forming part of the district, (c) members of the
Rajya Sabha returned from the State and ordinarily residing
in the district, (d) members of the State Legislative
Assembly representing Assembly constituencies wholly or
partly forming part of the district, and (e) district
officers representing various departments of the State
Government.
A close and combined reading of these provisions and
the other provisions of the Act which follow hereafter make
it quite evident that the actual control over the Gram
Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada Panchayat for
the block. It would also appear that the result of the
elections to the Janapada Panchayat would depend upon the
nature of the electoral roll prepared for each constituency
in a block. If the State Government were to issue a
notification under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act for
redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the
process of election has started, it would necessarily change
the whole pattern of voting in the election of members to
the Janapada Panchayat. This is plainly a typical case of
gerrymandering. As is well-known, ‘gerrymander’ is an
American expression which has taken root in the English
language, meaning to arrange election districts so as to
five an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a
redistribution act or to manipulate constituencies
generally.
Question of delimitation of constituencies in a block
under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is connected with the
holding of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat.
Question of delimitation of such constituencies would
necessarily arise when there is a alteration in the limits
of Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361 of the Act which
brings about a change in a block alteration in the limits of
the block under sub-s.(4) of s.370. It is not necessary for
us to go into details except to refer to certain relevant
provisions. Amalgamation, splitting up and alteration in the
limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried out after following
the procedure prescribed by ss.360 and 361. S.362 provides
that where a notification under s.361 has been issued the
State Government may make such consequential orders as it
may deem fit in respect of (a) the constitution of the Gram
Sabha and the Gram Panchayat for the altered area where a
local area has been included in or excluded from a Gram
Sabha; (b) for the dissolution of the existing Gram Sabhas
which have been amalgamated and the Gram Panchayats or
subordinate agencies
906
thereof, as the case may be, and the constitution of the
amalgamated Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat thereafter; (c)
the dissolution of the Gram Sabhas split up and the
constitution of the Gram Sabhas established in its place and
the constitution of the Gram Panchayats thereafter and
matters ancillary thereto.
Alteration of the limits of a block can be effected by
the State Government after following the procedure
prescribed in s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(1) of s.370 provides
that the State Government may by notification, signify its
intention to alter the limits of a block by including
therein any local area in the vicinity thereof or by
excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein. Sub-
s.(2) provides that every such notification shall define the
limits of the local area which is intended to be included in
or excluded from a block. Sub s(3) provides that any
inhabitant of the area or areas effected by a notification
under sub-s.(1) may, if he objects to anything therein
contained, submit his objection in writing to the State
Government within 60 days of the publication of the
notification and the State Government shall take his
objection into consideration. Sub-s.(4) provides that when
60 days from the date of publication of the notification
have expired and the State Government has considered and
passed orders on such objections as may have been submitted
to it within the said period the State Government may, by
notification, include the local area or any part thereof in
the block or exclude it therefrom. s.371 provides that on
the issue of a notification under sub-s.(4) of s.370, the
State Government may make such consequential orders as it
may deem fit in respect of (i) the constitution of Janapada
Panchayat for the altered area, etc. When there is an
alteration in the limits of a Gram Sabha area under sub-
s.(2) of s.361 or in the limits of a block under sub-s.(4)
of s.370, it may be that the State Government would have to
issue the requisite notification for delimitation of the
constituencies of such altered block under sub-s.(1) of
s.106 of the Act.
In the instant case, there was no alteration either in
the limits of the Gram Sabha area under sub-s.(2) of s.361
or of the block under sub-s.(4) of s.370 and therefore no
occasion for the State Government to issue a fresh
notification under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act purporting
to restructure the constituencies of the block. We have no
doubt in our mind that the impugned notification dated
November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government seeking to
alter the constituencies of the blocks after the
907
process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had
started and that by the Collector dated November 29, 1970
for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the members
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala
fide and intended and meant to gain control over the
Janapada Panchayat and were therefore liable to be struck
down.
The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into
constituencies under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is to
ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation
to the Gram Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat
and the Zila Panchayat. The result of any election under a
majority system depends in fact not only on the way people
vote but on the way their votes are distributed among the
constituencies. It was therefore impermissible for the State
Government to redistribute the constituencies in the Manasa
Block under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act so as to give an
unfair advantage to the party in power to gain control over
the Janapada Panchayat and in turn over the Zila Panchayat.
This is precisely what has happened in this case as is clear
from the narration of facts. Although the High Court has not
touched upon this aspect, it is quite apparent that the act
of gerrymandering was to manipulate the result of the
Janapada Panchayat and thereby materially affect the
constitution of the Zila Panchayat.
Turning to the next question, it is necessary to state
that the State Government in exercise of the powers under
ss.105 and 106 of the Act has issued a composite
notification dated August 31, 1965 signifying its intention
to divide the Manasa Block into twenty constituencies from
which the representatives of the Janapada Panchayat were to
be elected and invited objections within 30 days from the
date of publication of the said notification. After
consideration of the objections raised the State Government
by notification dated September 26, 1969 divided the block
into twenty constituencies with one representative to be
elected from each constituency. As already stated the
elections to the Gram Panchayats were held on November 8,
1970 and on November 14, 1970 the Collector notified the
result of the elections and the Gram Panchayats assumed
office on that date. All of a sudden, while the process of
election of members to the Janapada Panchayat was on, the
State Government issued the impugned notification dated
November 25, 1970 under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act
seeking to alter the constituencies of the block. Normally,
when the State Government intends to later or modify the
limits of a block, it has to follow the procedure laid down
in s.370 of the Act. Sub-s.(3) thereof confers a right on
908
the person effected to raise objections in writing to the
proposed alteration and costs a duty on the State Government
to consider such objections. It is only upon compliance of
the mandatory requirements of sub-s.(3) that the State
Government can proceed to issue a notification under sub-
s.(4) of s.370 for the alteration of the limits of a block.
That is the normal procedure provided which implies the
giving of an opportunity to the persons affected. There was
really no occasion for the State Government to have issued
the impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 seeking to
restructure the constituencies of the block in the midst of
the election. Even if there was such a power, the State
Government was in duty bound to publish the proposal giving
an opportunity to the persons affected to raise their
objections to the proposed alteration. The impugned
notification dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State
Government under sub-s.(1) of s.106 of the Act is therefore
totally invalid.
The result therefore is that the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
909