- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Village Panchayat Of Calangute, Through Its Sarpanch v. The Deputy Director Of Panchayats & Ors.
Summary of Opinion — S.A. Bobde, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent No. 4 applied for a water connection and was refused a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) by the petitioner village panchayat for a residential house. Respondent No. 4 appealed to the Block Development Officer (BDO), who, acting as the appellate authority under section 201-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, allowed the appeal and directed the panchayat to grant the N.O.C. within 30 days. The panchayat filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji, which was dismissed on the ground that a revision could not be entertained at the instance of the panchayat. The revisional authority relied on a prior decision in Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F Rebjello (1990 1 Goa L.T 70). The panchayat challenged the dismissal by way of a writ petition; the court considered whether an order passed by the BDO under s. 201-A is revisable at the instance of the village panchayat and whether the panchayat has locus to seek such revision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an order passed by the Block Development Officer under section 201-A(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is revisable under section 201-A(2) at the instance of the village panchayat.
- How the expression "any order" in section 201-A(2) should be construed—specifically, whether it permits revision of "every" order passed by the BDO irrespective of the identity of the party seeking revision.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Panchayat's) Arguments
- The petitioner argued that the phrase "any order" in section 201-A(2) indicates the Legislature's intention to make orders passed by the Block Development Officer revisable, with no restriction as to the nature of the order or the party applying for revision.
- The petitioner relied on a recent Supreme Court decision (State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai) for the proposition that words like "every" or "any" in an appellate or revisional provision should be given their plain meaning and not unduly restricted.
Revisional Authority / Respondent Position (as recorded)
- The Deputy Director of Panchayats dismissed the panchayat's revision on the ground that the panchayat cannot entertain a revision at its own instance and relied on the decision in Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F Rebjello (1990 1 Goa L.T 70), which had held that a village panchayat lacked locus standi to challenge an appellate order by way of a writ petition in those facts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F Rebjello . 1990 1 Goa L.T 70. | Held that a village panchayat had no locus standi to challenge an appellate authority's order by way of a writ petition in the facts of that case; reasoning included concern about subversion of judicial discipline. | The court distinguished that decision on the ground that the present matter is governed by the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the statutory scheme of s. 201-A differs from the earlier regulation; the earlier decision was applied by the revisional authority but the court found the present situation different and not controlled by that precedent. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai | Interpreted an appellate provision using the phrase "every order of the competent authority" and held that the Legislature's deliberate use of words like "every" must be given effect; restrictive readings that render such words redundant are impermissible. | The court relied on this Supreme Court decision to construe the expression "any order" in s. 201-A(2) as permitting revision of orders by the Deputy Director and affirmed that the word "any" should be given its plain meaning, supporting the view that the village panchayat is capable of applying for revision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by recounting the relevant statutory provision, section 201-A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which establishes an appeal to the Block Development Officer for miscellaneous matters dealt with by the panchayat and expressly provides in sub-section (2) that "A revision shall lie to the Deputy Director against any order passed by the block development officer under sub-s. (1) within a period of thirty days from the date of the order."
The court analyzed the language of sub-section (2) and concluded that the use of the word "any" indicates legislative intent to make BDO orders revisable by the Deputy Director without restricting the nature of the order or the identity of the applicant. The petitioner's counsel's submission—that "any order" implies revisability—was accepted as correct.
To bolster this textual interpretation, the court relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai, which cautioned against reading restrictive meanings into words like "every" (or, by analogy, "any") and emphasized that the Legislature's deliberate choice of such words must be given effect so as to avoid redundancy. Applying that interpretive principle, the court held that "any order" in s. 201-A(2) must be construed broadly to permit a village panchayat to seek revision.
The court distinguished the earlier Division Bench decision in Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F Rebjello on the ground that that decision arose under a different statutory regime (Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation, 1962) and the facts and law governing that case were different from the present case governed by the 1994 Act.
On this basis, the court concluded that the revisional authority erred in dismissing the panchayat's revision solely on the ground of non-entertainment at the panchayat's instance and directed that the Deputy Director must decide the revision petition on its merits and in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30th March, 2004 is set aside and the Deputy Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji is directed to decide the petitioner's revision on merits and in accordance with law.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The Dy. Director must reconsider the panchayat's revision petition on its merits within the statutory framework of s. 201-A. The impugned dismissal of the revision is vacated.
- The court held that, under the language of s. 201-A(2), a village panchayat is capable of applying for revision against an order of the Block Development Officer.
- The opinion distinguishes an earlier decision (Village panchayat of Velim) as being governed by different facts and an earlier statutory regime; no broader precedent beyond the statutory interpretation set out in this opinion is expressly proclaimed by the court.
S.A Bobde, J.:— Petitioner panchayat has challenged the Judgment and order dated 30.3.2004, by which the revision application by the panchayat against the order of the block development officer dated 15th April, 2004 has been dismissed.
2. Apparently, the respondent No. 4 applied for water connection. This respondent filed an appeal before the block development officer as he was refused a no objection certificate for his residential house. The appellate authority, i.e the block development officer, acting as the appellate authority granted the prayer of respondent No. 4 and directed the panchayat, the petitioner herein, to grant N.O.C within 30 days. The panchayat preferred a revision before the Dy. Director of Panchayats, North Goa, at Panaji. This revision has been dismissed on the ground that it cannot be entertained at the instance of the panchayat. The revisional authority has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F Rebjello . 1990 1 Goa L.T 70.,. In that case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the village panchayat has no locus standi to challenge an order of the appellate authority by way of a writ petition on the ground that it would amount to subversion of judicial discipline. The said decision was rendered in the facts of that case and the law governing that case. In that case, the village panchayat had sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order made by the Dy. Collector acting as an appellate authority and had sought an injunction restraining the respondent therein from carrying on any construction based on the order of that appellate authority. The respondent therein was refused permission by the panchayat to construct on his own land. He, therefore, preferred an appeal under s. 83 of the Panchayats regulation to the Deputy Collector, who allowed his appeal. Against that, the village panchayat had filed the writ petition.
3. It must be noted that the present matter is governed by the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which was subsequent to the above decision of this Court. The order in appeal, which was made by the block development officer in the present case under s. 201-A, reads as under:
“The appeal memo and the prayer of appellant is upheld and the respondent panchayat of Calangute is hereby directed to grant N.O.C to the appellant Shri Francis D'Souza for release of water supply within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order without violating any of the procedure and also without any prejudice to any person in the matter.”
4. The question is whether the appellate order is revisable at the instance of the village panchayat. I am of the view that the present situation is different from the one before the Division Bench which was considering the propriety of a writ petition by a village panchayat against an appellate order passed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulation, 1962. Section 201-A reads as follows:
“201-A. Appeal on miscellaneous matter dealt by the panchayats. -(1) Where no appeal has been specifically provided in this Act on any miscellaneous matters which is dealt with by the panchayat or the village panchayat secretary or the sarpanch, an appeal shall lie to the block development officer within a period of thirty days from the date of refusal of any request by the said authority and his decision on such appeal, subject to the provision of sub-s. (2), shall be final.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “refusal” means rejecting of any request in writing or non conveying of any reply to the application within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of application in his office.
(2) A revision shall lie to the Deputy Director against any order passed by the block development officer under sub-s. (1) within a period of thirty days from the date of the order.”
5. The statutory scheme enacted by s. 201-A, as is apparent from the section, provides for an appeal in respect of any miscellaneous matters which are dealt with by the panchayat or the village panchayat secretary or the sarpanch and it provides for an appeal to the block development officer. Sub-section (2) clearly lays down that a revision shall lie to the Dy. Director of Panchayats against any order passed by the block development; officer.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word “any order” suggests the intention of the Legislature to make an order passed by the block development officer, revisable. This submission seems to be correct. Indeed, the word “any” suggests that every order is revisable by the Dy. Director of Panchayats. It does not place any restriction as regards the nature of the order or the party applying for revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Marwanjee F. Desai, where the Supreme Court was considering an appellate provision which provided that an appeal shall lie from “every order of the competent authority”. In that case, the High Court held that the competent authority being an arm or wing of the Government, cannot be permitted to lodge protest against its own order. Their Lordships considered this view to be a total misreading of the Statute and observed that in the event it is accepted, it would lead to a dangerous proposition having far reaching consequence (para 8).
7. In para (11), the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“……True intent of the Legislature shall have to be gathered and deciphered in its proper spirit having due regard to the language used therein. Statement of objects and reasons is undoubtedly, an aid to construction but that by itself cannot be termed to be and by itself cannot be interpreted. It is a useful guide but the interpretations and the intent shall have to be gathered from the entirety of the Statute and when the language of the sections providing an appeal to a forum is clear and categorical no external aid is permissible in interpretation of the same. The Legislature has deliberately used “every order” and if the restrictive meaning is attributed, as has been so done by the High Court, then the word “every” in any event becomes totally redundant but since the Legislature avoids redundancy every word used in the particular provision shall have to be attributed a meaning and attribution of any meaning to the word “every” by itself would negate the Interpretation as found favour with the High Court. The word “every” has been totally ignored, which is neither permissible nor warranted.”
8. I am of the view that the expression “any order” occurring in sub-s. (2) must be similarly construed and the village panchayat must be held capable of applying for revision.
9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 30th March, 2004 is set aside. The Dy. Director of Panchayats, North Goa, Panaji is directed to decide the petitioner's revision, on merits and in accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press for the challenge against the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 25.11.2002
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Alert