Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed challenging the inclusion of Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat in the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat Barsana on the ground that their objection against such inclusion notification was not considered, a division bench of Anjani Kumar Mishra and Jayant Banerji*, JJ. held that every resident of the area in question is a stakeholder under the UP Municipalities Act and has the right to submit suggestions and objections. These must be given due consideration by the Governor. The Court emphasized that the State Government cannot dismiss an objection simply by claiming it was not received within the stipulated time, especially when the tracking report confirms its receipt within the deadline. The Court further clarified that although the Government acknowledged receipt of the petitioners’ objection within the prescribed time, it failed to consider it, incorrectly asserting that the objection was not timely and treating it similarly to other objections that had been duly considered.
Background:
On 15-09-2022, the Governor issued a notification under Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (‘the Act’) proposing to include several areas including the areas of Barsana Dehat in the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat Barsana with a view to invite objections and suggestions in respect thereof under Section 4(1) of the Act. This notification provided that objections or suggestions, if any, regarding the proposed notification should be sent in writing to Pramukh Sachiv, UP Shasan. It was specified that only such objections and suggestions shall be taken into consideration as are received within seven days from the date of publication of that notification in the Gazette.
Village Barsana Dehat consists of extremely poor and jobless people whose livelihoods depend on the State Government facilities and programs which they are able to access due to their residency of the village. Changing the status of the area that they reside in would significantly affect their access to these facilities. Due to this reason, on 19-09-2022, an objection was sent by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Barsana Dehat, Mathura to the Pramukh Sachiv by post which was delivered to the State the next day itself, as per the tracking report. Thereafter, vide another notification in October 2022, the area of Barsana Dehat was included in the transitional area of Nagar Panchayat Barsana. Aggrieved by the fact that his objection was not considered, the Pradhan filed this writ petition.
Analysis:
The Court perused the Act and noted that Section 4 of the Act mandates wide, effective, and mandatory notice so that the persons living within the area or areas covered by the draft notification have adequate opportunity to access information about the proposed transition of those areas under Article 243-Q of the Constitution. It also gives a democratic right to every person living in the area sought to be covered by the notification to submit any written objection or suggestion regarding the draft within the period stated therein. Further, Section 3(3) highlights the mandatory compliance of Section 4 and Section 5 provides for several civil consequences for people living in the notified areas such as deprivation of benefits from Government programs and schemes for village areas.
The Court noted that under such circumstances, such notification may drastically change the lives of persons concerned, so the opportunity to make objections and/or suggestions after the publication of draft notification and due consideration of the same by the Governor are vital and mandatory requirements of the statute. The Court stated that though there is no issue regarding the deprivation of property of the petitioners, however, it is a matter of consideration that collective benefits that accrue to the residents of the gram panchayat area before such notification are sought to be taken away in the name of perceived benefits of such area being included in the Nagar Panchayat.
The Court held that “each resident of such an area is a stakeholder and has a right under the Act to make suggestions and objections which have to be considered by the Governor, and the State Government cannot brush aside an objection using a general denial that it was not received within the stipulated time when it was duly received as per the tracking report”..
Upon perusal of the petitioners’ objection, the Court noted that though certain issues are common, other objections raised by the petitioners are not mentioned in those considered and disposed of by the Government. The Court held that the objections of the petitioners were never considered and under such circumstances, the notification and impugned order cannot be sustained so far as they relate to Village Barsana Dehat. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notification was quashed.
[Gram Panchayat v. State Of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 7088, decided on 11-11-2024]
*Order Authored by: Justice Jayant Banerji
Advocate who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Anoop Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
