W.P.(C) No. 21265 of 2016. Case: Dambarudhar Budek and Ors. Vs The State of Odisha and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No. 21265 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Himansu Sekhar Mishra, A.K. Mishra, A.K. Tripathy, R. Dash, Advs. and For Respondents: K.K. Mishra, Learned Additional Government Advocate |
| Judges | Biswanath Rath, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Judgement Date | February 02, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
Biswanath Rath, J.
-
This is the second round of litigations at the instance of the petitioners. In the first round of litigation, these five petitioners had made an approach to this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 13524 of 2016 assailing the notification vide Annexure-4 in the matter of reorganization of the Gramapanchayat particularly creating Khalipathar Gramapanchayat by deleting the village Bhuliabandha from the original Grampanchayat Juba. Considering the rival contentions therein and after perusing the materials produced therein, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide W.P.(C) No. 13524 of 2016 on 31.8.2016 directing the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department to look into the grievance of the petitioners appearing under Annexure-2 (series) & 3 (series) therein and take a decision as appropriate after taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners and giving opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. The entire exercise was also directed to be concluded within a period of three months. The matter was reconsidered by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary and by its order under Annexure-8 the Commissioner-cum-Secretary held that the constitution of new Khalipathar Grampanchayat out of the existing Juba Grampanchayat as well as tagging of the village Bhuliabandha under the newly created Khalipathar Grampanchayat is justified and in the larger interest of the general public.
In the second round of litigation, in filing this writ petition, the petitioners again challenged the action of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary involving Annexure-8 vis-à-vis. the decision in the matter of reorganization of the Gramas vide Annexure-6.
-
In assailing the impugned order, Sri H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that the procedures prescribed in Annexure-1 for reorganization of Gramas have not been followed. It is contended that the criteria in the matter of reorganization of Gramapanchayat will be made within the Panchayat Samiti area, population census of 2011 will be taken as criteria for reorganization propose, existing Grampanchayat headquarters will remain unchanged, revenue village shall not be bifurcated and particularly the Grampanchayat having population around 10,000 or more shall be bifurcated and reorganized taking into consideration the geographical locations, natural barrier and administrative convenience for constitution of new Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that the above procedures have not been followed at all. Procedures in the matter of constitution of District Level Committee have not been followed. No notice has been given to the general public inviting objections against the proposals received from Blocks concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial