MANU/MH/0792/1987

Equivalent Citation: 1989MhLJ527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI-GOA BENCH)

Writ Petitions Nos. 221 and 222 of 1986
Decided On: 02.12.1987
Appellants: Savlo Rama Porobo
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. G.F. Couto and G.D. Kamat, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.S. Usgaonkar
For Respondents/Defendant: V.B. Nadkarni, Government Advocate, For respondents
Nos. 1 to 4
JUDGMENT
G.F. Couto, J.
1. The legality of the Notification No. l/15(19)/85-F and A, whereby, inter alia, the area
of Varkhand-Nagzor Village Panchayat was modified, is the subject of the challenge in
these two Writ Petitions filed, one, by a panch of the said Panchayat and, the other by a
villager and member of the Gram Sabha of the same Village Panchayat.
2. The Village Panchayat of Varconda-Nagzar had been constituted and by a Notification
dated 4th August, 1977, published on the same day, in the Official Gazette, was said to
comprise the areas of 1. Kadsarem (Houses Nos. 44 to 57); 2. Varconda; 3. Nagzbr; 4.
Shemechi Adivan; 5. Nanachapani; 6. Tulaskarwadi; 7. Purvawadi and 8. Bhemalem. On
2nd August, 1986, a meeting was held in the chamber of the Minister for Labour and
Employment and Panchayats to discuss the problems of some villages affected in the re-
organisation of some Panchayats of Taluka of Pernem and the proposed Municipality of
Pernem. The concerned Sarpanchas had attended the said meeting and considering the
demands of the public and the proposal for setting up a Municipality for town and
Pernem, ultimately, tentatively suggested that the Varkhand-Nagzor Village Panchayat
would comprise the areas of Kadsarem (Houses Nos. 50 to 62), Varconda, Nagzar,
Shemechi Adivani, Nanachapani, part of the revenue village Cansarvarnem comprising
the area of Tulaskarwadi and part of the revenue village Cansarvarnem comprising the
area of Purvawadi. An extraordinary meeting was therefore held on 11th September,
1986, by the Gram Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor to decide the issue of the division of
the said Gram Panchayat. A resolution was passed, according to which, the division of
the Gram Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor was decided to be effected in accordance with
the minutes of the meeting convened by the Minister for Panchayats on 2nd August,
1986, that is to say that, with the exclusion of Bhendalem - part of the Ozrim village,
the remaining part of Tulaskarwadi and Purvawadi which were parts of Cansarvarnem
village be joined to Varkhond-Nagzor Panchayat only. Thereafter, the Secretary to the
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, in charge of the Panchayats, by the impugned
Notification dated 22nd September, 1986, published in the Official Gazette dated 23rd

26-08-2021 (Page 1 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

September, 1986, notified the alterations made in several Panchayats and, inter alia, in
the Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor. As per the said Notification, the areas comprising in
the said Panchayat were stated to be 1) Kadsarem, 2) Varconda, 3) Nagzar, 4)
Shemechi Adivan, 5) Nanachapani and 6) part of the revenue village Cansarvarnem
comprising the area of Tulaskarwadi and excluding Purvawadi. The said area of
Purvawadi was included in the Village Panchayat Cansarvornem-Chandel.
3 . Petitioners in both the petitions challenge the aforesaid Notification on the same
grounds and, therefore, this common judgment. It is indeed their case that the
aforesaid Notification is vitiated inasmuch as there was no proper consultation of the
Village Panchayat as required by Section 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village
Panchayats Regulation, 1962, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation". Secondly, no
proposal for the modification or alteration of the area of the said Panchayat had been
made by the Lt Governor although under the said Section 9 alterations of the area of a
Village Panchayat can be done by the Lt. Governor only after consultation with the
Panchayat or Panchayats concerned. Finally, the decision to modify the areas of the
Panchayat concerned was actually taken in the meeting held by the Minister for
Panchayats on 2nd August, 1986, and, therefore, the Resolution passed by the
Panchayat does not constitute a proper consultation and expression of its views.
4 . Elaborating, Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
in both the cases, submitted that Section 9 of the Regulation provides that the
Lieutenant Governor may, after consultation with the Panchayat or Panchayats
concerned, by a Notification include any area within the limits of a village, or exclude
any area from such limits, or declare that any village shall cease to exist by reason of
its inclusion in another village or in any Municipal or other local areas. He then invited
bur attention to the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd August, 1986, in the chamber
of the Minister for Labour, Employment and Panchayats, particularly, to the portion
thereof wherein it is stated that the Hon'ble Minister after explaining to the Sarpanchas
the reasons why the areas of the Panchayats were required to be modified, requested
them to spell out their views on the re-organisation. The learned counsel further urged
that it is clear from the minutes of the said meeting that it has been decided to
constitute the Panchayats in the manner recorded in the same minutes and, in
particular, as regards the Varkhand-Nagzor Village Panchayat as comprising the areas of
Kadsarem (Houses Nos. 50 to 62), Varconda, Nagzar, Shemechi Adivani, Nanachapani,
part of the revenue village Casarvarnem including the area of Tulaskarwadi and part of
the revenue village Cansarvarnem comprising the area of Purvawadi. He further took us
through the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Gram Panchayat of Varkhand-
Nagzor held on 11th September, 1986, and submitted that the Resolution passed shows
that the Panchayat merely confined itself to accord its agreement to the proposed
modification of the areas of the Panchayat as shown in the minutes. The Panchayat did
not at all address to the question of the exclusion of the area of Purvawadi from the
Panchayats Varkhand-Nagzor and had not also addressed to the question of including
the whole area of Kadsarem in the same Village Panchayat. Nonetheless, by the
impugned Notification dated 22nd September, 1986, the whole area of Purvawadi was
excluded from the Village Panchayat of Varkhad-Nagzor and the entire area of Kadsarem
was included therein. These facts, the learned counsel urged, indicate that there was no
proper consultation as required by Section 9 of the Regulation and, in particular, there
was no consultation as regards the exclusion of the area of Purvawadi from the Village
Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor. The aforesaid Notification is thus vitiated inasmuch as
the provisions of the said Section 9 had not been complied with. That apart, the learned
counsel further contended that it is clear from the records that the Lieutenant Governor
had not sent a proposal for the modification of its area to the Village Panchayat of

26-08-2021 (Page 2 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Varkhand-Nagzor and that the abovementioned Resolution passed by the Panchayat was
on basis of the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd August, 1986, in the chamber of the
Minister for Panchayats. On this count also, Mr. Usgaonkar argued, there was no
compliance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Regulation. Finally, he submitted that
what is recorded in the minutes of the aforesaid meeting held in the chamber of the
Minister for Panchayats as regards the decision taken to constitute the Panchayats in a
particular manner clearly shows that the decision to re-constitute the Panchayat of
Varkhand-Nagzor had already been taken in the said meeting and the Resolution passed
by the Panchayat on 11th September, 1986, constitutes a mere eye-wash and an empty
formality which, in no manner, satisfied the requirements of Section 9.
5 . Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Government Advocate, while joining issue with Mr.
Usgaonkar on the merits of the petition, however raised a preliminary objection in
respect of the maintainability of these writ petitions for want of locus standi by the
petitioners. He contended that one of the petitions had been filed by a panch of the
Village Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor and the other by a villager and a member of the
Gram Sabha of the same Village Panchayat. Nowhere in the petition it has been stated
in what manner the rights of the petitioners had been infringed, or that a legal injury
has been caused to them by the alteration of the area of the Village Panchayat of
Varkljand-Nagzor, or even that they have a legal interest which entities them to
challenge the said re-constitution of the said Village Panchayat. He urged that a villager
has no special right or interest in the re-constitution of a Panchayat, as an elector is not
in any manner affected by it, similar being the case of a panch or a member of the
Gram Sabha; and in support, reliance was placed in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, MANU/SC/0011/1975 : AIR 1976 SC 578 and D.
Nagarajetc. vs. State of Karnataka and others, MANU/SC/0319/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 876.
He further contended that the petitions having been filed not in representation of a class
of persons or to safeguard a public interest, the petitioners have no locus standi to
maintain a writ petition filed on the ground of public interest, as it flows from the
observations of the Supreme Court in Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others vs. State of Bihar
and others, MANU/SC/0072/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 579. In any event, the learned counsel
further submitted, placing reliance in Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another vs. The
State of West Bengal and others, MANU/SC/0136/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 1109, that even if
these petitions can be brought within the bracket of public interest litigation, one has to
bear in mind that it is only when the Courts are apprised of gross violation of
fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded
or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience then the
Courts should leave aside the procedural shackles and should hear such petitions and
extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions of law for remedying the hardships
and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the ignored, and this, manifestly, is not
the case of the petitioners. Further, Mr. Nadkarni urged that a mere panch or member of
the Gram Sabha of a Village Panchayat has no right under Section 9 of the Regulation to
be individually consulted in respect of the modification of the areas of the Panchayat,
for Section 9 merely contemplates a consultation with the Panchayat, i.e., a
representative opinion, and not with the individual members of the Panchayat. In this
connection, reliance was placed in the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
Sheshrao Bhaurao Jadhav vs. Commissioner, Aurangabad Division and others,
MANU/MH/0187/1985 : 1982 Mh.L.J. 787 : AIR 1985 Bom 256. Therefore, for this
reason also, petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the validity of the impugned
Notification, and further, as observed by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Doss vs. State
of U. P. and others, MANU/SC/0349/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 1393, a petitioner cannot be
heard to say in a writ petition filed for assertion of his individual rights that the action
of the Government is calculated to prejudice somebody else's rights and should,

26-08-2021 (Page 3 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

therefore, be struck down. The petitioners who seek in these writ petitions to assert the
rights of the Village Panchayat are not entitled to raise such plea, since under the
aforesaid Section 9 of the Regulation, the consultation is of the Village Panchayat and
not of the individual panch. Besides, as observed in Mani Subrat Jain etc. etc. vs. State
of Haryana and others, MANU/SC/0540/1976 : AIR 1977 SC 276, no one can ask for a
mandamus without a legal right as there must be a judicial enforceable right as well as
a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus,
being pertinent to note that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when such a
person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to
abstain from doing something.
6 . Mr. Usgaonkar however contended, placing reliance in S. P. Gupta and others vs.
President of India and others, MANU/SC/0080/1981 : AIR 1982 SC 149, that the
concept of locus standi had been by now liberalised and is not restricted to the narrow
confines it had before. He, therefore, submitted that although the traditional rule as
regards the locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has
suffered a legal injury on account of the violation of his legal rights or legally protected
interests by the action of the State or a public Authority or any other person or who is
likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or
legally protected interest by any such action, many other situations were brought into
the concept of the locus standi In fact, he urged that now, inter alia, if a person is
entitled to participate in proceedings relating to the decision making process
culminating in the impugned decision, such person will have locus standi to challenge
it. The petitioner, in the writ petition No. 221 of 1986, is a panch of the Village
Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor and he has taken part in the resolution passed on 11th
September, 1986. He, therefore, has taken part in the proceedings relating to the
decision making process which has culminated in the impugned Notification, as the
consultation with the Panchayat is necessary under Section 9 of the Regulation,
constituting thereby part and parcel of the decision making process which, ultimately,
culminates in a Notification issued under the said Section 9. In his turn, the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 222 of 1986 is a member of the Gram Sabha and, in that capacity
and by virtue of Section 6 of the Regulation, he has interest in the business of the
Panchayat as well as in its composition. He is also an elector and is, as such, interested
in the composition of the Panchayat Petitioners have, therefore, locus standi to file
these writ petitions challenging a modification of the Panchayat which has not been
done in compliance with the provisions of the law, Mr. Usgaonkar concluded, placing
reliance in re Kudappa Subbamma, MANU/AP/0153/1956 : AIR 1957 AP 6.
7 . It is by now well-settled that in order to have locus standi to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, an applicant is ordinarily to be one who has a personal
or individual right in the subject-matter of the application. In other words, the general
rule is that there should be infringement of some legal right or some prejudice to some
legal interest of the petitioner to give him locus standi in the matter. This position of
law otherwise made clear by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions, has been
reiterated once again in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai's case (supra). Hence, only an aggrieved
person, meaning by that a person whose legal right or legal interest has been infringed,
can have locus standi to challenge the offending Act. The expression 'aggrieved person',
as observed by the Supreme Court in the said case, denotes "an elastic and, to an
extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and
comprehensive definition and, at the best, its features can be described in a broad and
tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse and variable factors, such
as, the contents and the intent of the Statute of which contravention is alleged, the
specific circumstances of the case, the nature and the extent of the petitioner's interest

26-08-2021 (Page 4 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him.'' This concept
of the locus standi was, no doubt, liberalised but was not substantially modified as
regards the private rights and legal interests, as can be seen from the observations
made by the Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta's case. In paragraph 17 of the Report, Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court indeed observed as under :
It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a
legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by
reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed
in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of
law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and
such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position,
unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain
an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court
under Art 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or
determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial
redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class
of persons.
And after making further observations illustrative of the above position of law, the Court
further observed : -
We may also point out that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law,
the Court may confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where legal
wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or group of persons or
the constitutional or legal right of such determinate class or group of persons is
violated and as far as possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury
at the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal aid
organisation which can take care of such cases.
8 . Mr. Usgaonkar, in all fairness, conceded that the present writ petitions do not fall
within the category of public interest litigation and hence, in the light of the above
observations made by the Supreme Court which lay down the law as regards the locus
standi, it will be pertinent to remind here that Section 9 of the Regulation merely
contemplates the consultation with a Village Panchayat and not with the individual
members of the Panchayat. Therefore, even if there is any infringement of the provision
of Section 9 of the Regulation, the grievance will be of the Panchayat, and of the
Panchayat alone, but never of any individual panch or of any elector or member of the
Gram Sabha. Such persons cannot obviously claim that any legal right or legal interest
of theirs was violated or was infringed and, therefore, have no locus standi to challenge
the Notification dated 22nd September 1986 on the ground that consultation as required
under Section 9 has not taken place. This view gets support in the decision of the Full
Bench in this court in Sheshrao's case (above), for while dealing with the provisions of
Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, the Full Bench observed that the
consultation contemplated therein is aimed at ascertaining the representative opinion of
the people as far as possible and that the members of the Panchayat cannot claim any
independent right against a dissolution, separation or merger if the decision is arrived
at in accordance with the statutory provisions.
9 . This being so, in the facts and circumstances of these cases where the petitioners
had not averred anything to show that there had been an infringement of any legal right
or legal interest of theirs, there is no manner of doubt that they have no locus standi to

26-08-2021 (Page 5 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

challenge the impugned Notification. But that apart, on merit also, the petitioners have
no case. We will proceed to deal with this aspect of the case although, strictly speaking,
was not necessary in view of the above finding that the petitioners had no hues standi
to challenge the impugned Notification.
1 0 . We already mentioned that the main challenge of the petitioners is that no
consultation as required by Section 9 of the Regulation has been made with the result
that the said Notification is totally vitiated. In fact, Mr. Usgaonkar contended that the
Resolution of the Gram Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor passed on 11th September,
1986, speaks by itself and it clearly shows that the Panchayat has not at all applied its
mind to the question of the exclusion from the territorial area of the said Village
Panchayat of the areas of Purvawadi as well as to the inclusion of the whole area of
Kadsarem in it. We are, however, afraid that this submission is not well-founded.
Undoubtedly, in the meeting held on 2nd August, 1986, in the chamber of the Minister
for Panchayats, a discussion was held on the subject of the re-constitution of several
Village Panchayats of the Pernem Taluka which was necessitated either by the demands
of the people or on account of the proposal to set up a Municipality to the Pernem town.
It appears that after discussion, the Sarpanchas of the concerned Village Panchayats had
tentatively agreed in some modifications in the areas of their respective Panchayats, and
accordingly, the areas which would form part of each Panchayat were recorded in the
minutes of the said meeting. Apparently, thereafter, there was no formal proposal sent
by the Government to the concerned Village Panchayats in order to obtain their views as
regards the said modification. However, it is also apparent that the issue of the said
modification was placed for discussion of each Village Panchayat, and the Gram
Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor, in particular, held a meeting on 11th September, 1986,
to discuss the subject of division of the said Gram Panchayat. A Resolution, being the
Resolution No. 1, was passed and duly communicated to the Government. It reads as
under : -
The division of Gram Panchayat Varkhand-Nagzor shall be effected in
accordance with the minutes No. (iii) of the meeting convened by the Minister
for Panchayats, Shri Vaikunth Dessai on 2nd August, 1986. That is to say, with
the exclusion of Bhendalem part of Vazarim village, the remaining 1)
Tulaskarwadi; 2) Purvawadi which are the parts of Cansarvarnem village shall
be joined to Varkhand Nagzor only.
11. The above Resolution makes it clear that the subject of the proposed division or
alteration of the area of the Gram Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor was duly discussed
and the Panchayat members had ultimately decided to effect the said modification in the
terms suggested in the minutes of the meeting convened by the Minister for Panchayats,
on 2nd August, 1986. However, the members of the Panchayat did not blindly accept
that suggestion, for they went further and made it clear that "with the exclusion of
Bhendalem part of Vazarim village, the remaining 1) Tulaskarwadi; 2) Purvawadi which
are the parts of Cansarvarnem village shall be joined to Varkand Nagzor only." These
words of the resolution unmistakenly indicate that a positive decision was taken to keep
the said areas of Tulaskarwadi and Purvawadi within the area of Varkhand-Nagzor
village. That there was a considered discussion of the issue is also corroborated by the
averment made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 221 of 1986. In fact, in paragraph
28, it is stated that no doubt there was a resolution of the Panchayat, dated 11th
September, 1986, wherein by a majority of 3, it has been resolved that the Varkhand-
Nagzor Panchayat be divided as per the minutes of the meeting dated 2nd August, 1986,
convened by the Minister for Panchayats Shri Vaikunth Dessai, i.e. to exclude
Bhendalem of Ozorim village and that Tulaskarwadi and Purvawadi of Cansarvarnem

26-08-2021 (Page 6 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

village to be joined only to, the Village Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor. It is further
averred that the said Resolution was passed by a majority of 3 to 2 and had been
objected by the pancha Shri Savlo Rama Parab, i.e.„ the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
221 of 1986, and by another member. Mr. Usgaonkar, naturally, was at pains to pass
over this hurdle and therefore, in his attempt to do so, submitted that the said
Notification does not speak at all about the exclusion of Purvawadi from the Panchayat
area. The argument, however obviously, has no merit, since a positive and
unmistakable decision has been taken to the effect that the areas of Tulaskarwadi and
Purvawadi should be kept only within the area of the Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor. By
necessary implication, this positive decision excludes the possibility of the Panchayat
agreeing with the exclusion of the said areas from the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat
and consequently, it expresses the views of the Panchayat.
12. It is thus clear that the Panchayat of Varkhand-Nagzor considered the issue of the
re-constitution of its area and communicated its views to the Government. This fully
satisfies the requirements of Section 9 of the Regulation, as the consultation spoken of
in the said Section 9 broadly means communication of views between the consulted
Panchayat and the consultor.
13. We draw support to this view in Sheshrao's case. While dealing with the provisions
of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the Full Bench has indeed observed that
the Act does not set out any particular concept or mode of such consultation and,
ordinarily and broadly, it means communication of the views between the consulted
Panchayat (Panchayat concerned) and the consultor on the subject and further exchange
of thoughts thereabout. In the Regulation also, no particular concept or mode of
consultation is set out and, therefore, the above observations of the Division Bench fully
apply to this case. We get further support in the observations made by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 61 of 1985, Shrirang Devraj Raikar vs.
Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu and 8 others, to the effect that the consultation
contemplated in Section 9 of the Regulation is for the purpose of ascertaining the views
of the Village Panchayat that the expression 'consultation' does not mean 'concurrence'
and that it would be an empty formality to further consult the Village Panchayat when
the Panchayat had already made its views known to the Government in explicit terms. It
is thus manifest that there is no merit at all in the above contention of Mr. Usgaonkar.
14. As regards the two other contentions, they will not detain us long as they do not
require much effort to be disposed of. Undoubtedly, the proposal was not made by the
Lt. Governor but, as observed by the Full Bench in Sheshrao's case, nothing really turns
on who has initiated the proposal, for what is really required is an exchange of views
between the Panchayat and the consultor. Similarly, the contention that the decision
taken in the meeting convened by the Minister for Panchayats has no force, as the said
so-called decision is of no consequence in view of the subsequent resolution taken by
the Panchayat itself, after due consideration of the subject.
15. The petitions fail and are therefore, dismissed. The rule in both is, accordingly,
discharged with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The interim
orders passed stand vacated.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

26-08-2021 (Page 7 of 7) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA