Judgment:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2009 dismissing the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has challenged order dated 10.11.2008, by which the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati exercised the powers of the State Government under Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and dissolved the village Panchayat, Pimpalgaon on the ground that seven out of thirteen members have resigned and their resignations have been accepted. The section, under which the Commissioner took action, reads as follows:
145(1-A): If more than half the total number of seats in a Panchayat have become vacant, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, dissolve such Panchayat.
The Divisional Commissioner invoked Clause (1-A) which enables the exercise of powers by the State Government if more than half the total number of seats in the Panchayat have become vacant. There is no dispute that such was case when the power was exercised by the Commissioner, in the present case.
3. Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have upheld the order of Commissioner, Amravati since the Commissioner has not given a finding that working of the village Panchayat has become impossible. According to the learned Counsel, it is in such circumstances alone that the State Government can exercise powers and not merely because the number has fallen below half. It must be noted that there is no such condition imposed by the section and there is no warrant for reading something which is not there. It is true that section confers powers on the Government which may be exercised at its discretion and there is no doubt that exercise of this power must be regulated by the principles of reasonableness and fairness as in case of administrative powers vested in the State. We, however, find, from the facts of the present case, that it cannot be said that power was exercised arbitrarily or unfairly. Due notice was given to the members of the village Panchayat before passing the order of dissolution. The submissions were heard from the members of the Panchayat, seven of whom submitted that they have raised several complaints of corruption and irregularities in the meeting of the Panchayat but in vain and they are not prepared to play role of onlookers and they, therefore, resigned. The Commissioner has observed that the members were forced to take the steps in the interest of the village Panchayat and in the interest of public. In the circumstances, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that smooth working of the village Panchayat is hampered and the village Panchayat is liable to be dissolved.
4. The learned Single Judge has referred to the reason given by the Commissioner and has upheld the order. While dong so, it appears that certain xerox copies of the documents were submitted by members of the village Panchayat who appeared as intervenors, in order to justify their resignations. The documents pertain to irregularities and alleged misappropriation in the functioning of the village Panchayat. On this basis, Mr. Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have taken into account the material, which was not produced before the Commissioner, since the order of the Commissioner can only be justified for the reasons stated therein and not on the basis of reasons contained in affidavits filed subsequently. He relied upon judgment in (Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji) : 1951 DGLS (soft) 65 : A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 16 and (Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.) : 1977 DGLS (soft) 340 : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. We find that no new justification was made out by the intervenors before the learned Single Judge. The justification was the same as given before the Commissioner, though the documents in support of it may not have been filed before the Commissioner. It is, thus, not possible to say that order of the Commissioner was sought to be justified on the documents, which were not presented to the Commissioner. Mr. Mirza, Advocate also relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court for the proposition that it is necessary for the Commissioner to record a finding that it would not possible for the Panchayat to function except by dissolution and holding fresh elections. These observations were made by Division Bench in (Shivaji Maruti Shingate and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) : 2007(4) Bom.C.R. 695 : 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 109 where the State Government refused to exercise discretion to dissolve the Panchayat and instead considered it appropriate to hold elections. These observations were, thus, made while upholding the decision to hold elections and are not the ratio decidendi of the case. The Commissioner, in the present case has made observations to the effect that a smooth working of the village Panchayat is hampered. We consider this reason a valid reason. The section confers a wide latitude on the State Government to take action in a variety of circumstances. It is not necessary that the powers can be exercised only where the functioning of the village Panchayat became impossible. It can also be exercised when smooth functioning is hampered and, of course, more than half the total number of seats in the Panchayat have become vacant in accordance with the provisions.
5. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.