2002 (8) TMI 843 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat.
2. Validity of the withdrawal of the bifurcation notification.
3. Impact of procedural lapses and incorrect facts presented in prior litigation.
4. Applicability of the concepts of per incuriam and sub silentio.
5. Authority of the 2nd respondent to revoke the bifurcation notification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat:
The bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat, which included the formation of Kothamangapuram Gram Panchayat, was initiated by a notice dated 24-4-1995 and finalized by a notification dated 12-5-1995. This process was conducted under the relevant provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 17-8-1994. The Pulluru Gram Panchayat had agreed to the bifurcation, and no objections were raised, leading to the issuance of the final notification.

2. Validity of the Withdrawal of the Bifurcation Notification:
The withdrawal of the bifurcation notification by the 2nd respondent on 5-7-2002 was challenged. The petitioner argued that once the notification dated 12-5-1995 was set aside by the Court in W.P.No.10987/95, the question of the 2nd respondent withdrawing the same does not arise. Furthermore, the bifurcation of Pulluru village did not come under the purview of the ban imposed by G.O.Rt.No.1634, P.R.& R.D. Department, dated 12-10-2001.

3. Impact of Procedural Lapses and Incorrect Facts Presented in Prior Litigation:
The prior litigation (W.P.No.10987/95) was disposed of based on incorrect facts, specifically the misidentification of the village involved in the bifurcation. The Court had set aside the notification dated 12-5-1995 based on the representation that the relevant rules were framed after the impugned order, which was incorrect. The rules were already in existence as per G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 17-8-1994. This misrepresentation led to the setting aside of the notification without proper examination of its validity.

4. Applicability of the Concepts of Per Incuriam and Sub Silentio:
The judgment highlighted that the prior decision in W.P.No.10987/95 was rendered per incuriam and sub silentio. Per incuriam applies as the Court was unaware of the existing rules at the time of the notification. Sub silentio applies because the Court did not consider whether the notification violated any criteria prescribed under the rules. These concepts justify that the notification dated 12-5-1995 should not be considered set aside.

5. Authority of the 2nd Respondent to Revoke the Bifurcation Notification:
The 2nd respondent's authority to revoke the notification was questioned. The Court concluded that the 2nd respondent lacked the power under the Act or the Rules to revoke or withdraw the notification once issued. The rescission of the rules in 2001 did not provide a basis for withdrawing the bifurcation already effected in 1995. The Court held that the notification dated 12-5-1995 remained valid and effective.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 5-7-2002 and held that the bifurcation of Pulluru Gram Panchayat into Pulluru and Kothamangapuram Gram Panchayats through the notification dated 12-5-1995 was valid. The respondents were directed to hold elections for both Gram Panchayats within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no costs.