STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus DEVILAL

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 20-12-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
894 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS, 
v. 
DEVI LAL 
DECEMBER 20, 1985 
[A,P, SEN AND D,P, MADON,'JJ,] 
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 - Sections 1061361 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. 
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 Govermnent 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 Constitilencies were Ili>tified, 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 sests 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, Manssa, 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 Govern-
ment 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 
STATE v. DEVI LAL 
895 
assuming the State Government was empowered to alter or modify 
A 
the Constituencies of a block during the progress of election to 
the Janapada Panchayat, 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 Panchaysts and Janapada Panchayats are two distinct 
and separate entities, and the Act envisages different proce-
dures for holding independent elections and merely because the 
Gram Panchayat elections were over it could not be said that a 
B 
notification modifying the constituencies of the Gram Panchayats 
C 
could not be issued under s. 106; (2) that the notification seek-
ing to alter the constituencies did not pertain to the Manasa 
Block alone but to many other blocks in the district and, there-
fore, the issuance of the notification was not actuated with 
political motives, and (3) that the provisions of as. 105 and 106 
do not make it obligatory on the part of the State Government to 
D 
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 
E 
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 Kalyaus:lngh 
Ratbor & Ors. v. The Stace 
of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 
A. r. R. 
1974 M.P. 84, wherein it was held that the exercise of the power 
F 
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 
G 
by the State Government under sub-s.(l) of s. 106 of the Madhya 
Pradesh Panchayats Act 1962 is in-valid. [908 CJ 
2. The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into cons-
titueucies under sub-s.(l) of s. 106 of the Ac~ is to ensure that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.