1 CGHC010228362024 2026:CGHC:34633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3669 of 2024 1 - Gendlal Baiga S/o Premlal Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Near Vandana School, Village And Post Janankpur, Police Station Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pavan Kumar Baiga S/o Premlal Baiga Aged About 41 Years R/o 858, Pachvar Para, Ward No. 13, Village And Post Janankpur, Police Station Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sukvariya Baiga S/o Ramsingh Baiga Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Pandrah Toli, Village And Post Janankpur, Police Station Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sushila Baiga S/o Ramnath Baiga Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No.7, Pandrah Toli, Village And Post Janankpur, Police Station Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kushu Baiga S/o Ramlal Baiga Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Chaura Para, Village And Post Janankpur, Police Station Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nagar Panchayat Janakpur Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs, New Delhi 110001. 6 - Secretary, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs Rajendra Prasad Road, Shashtri Bhawan New Delhi, 110001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent/UOI : Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing impugned gazette notification dated 27.09.2023 issued by Department of Urban Administration Development (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ 3 restoration of Gram Panchayat Status of Janakpur, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order considering the special facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, validity and constitutional propriety of the Gazette Notification dated 27.09.2023 issued by the Department of Urban Administration and Development, whereby Gram Panchayat Janakpur has been constituted as a Nagar Panchayat. It is contended that the impugned notification has been issued in an arbitrary and unjust manner, without due consideration of the constitutional safeguards and statutory provisions applicable to tribal areas. Learned counsel further submits that the conversion of Gram Panchayat Janakpur into a Nagar Panchayat is seriously prejudicial to the rights and interests of the tribal population residing in the said area, as such conversion would adversely affect the special protections, privileges and benefits available to them under the existing constitutional and statutory framework. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned notification deserves to be quashed and appropriate consequential relief be granted so as to protect and safeguard the constitutional and statutory rights and interests of the tribal community residing in the area. 4 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in the present petition has already been considered and conclusively settled by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 714/2024 and connected matters. It is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the grievance raised by the petitioners no longer survives for consideration and the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. He, therefore, submits that no further interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Smt. Priyadarshani Singh Nahrel and other connected matters passed on 12.12.2024, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has observed as under:- “16. These appeals relate to five different Gram Panchayats which have been upgraded to Nagar Panchayat. The same reads as under: Gram Panchayat Upgraded to Nagar Panchayat Notification calling objections was published on Notification regarding of formation of Nagar Panchayat published on Constitution of Committee under Section 16(1) of the Act of 1961 notified on (Impugned before the learned Single Judge) Marwahi, Lohari and Kumhari Marwahi 18.08.2020 27.09.2023 27.06.2024 Janakpur Janakpur 21.08.2023 27.09.2023 27.06.2024 Kopra Kopra 24.08.2023 06.10.2023 27.06.2024 Sarsiwa Sarsiwa 11.04.2023 27.09.2023 27.06.2024 Pawni Pawni 01.06.2023 06.10.2023 27.06.2024 5 20. Section 5 of the Act of 1961 is in respect of constitution of Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats. Section 5A is in regard to power of Governor to include or exclude certain areas from the limits of municipal area. Sub-section (3) states that once the prescribed period for submission of objection in writing to the Collector is over and the Governor has considered the objection under sub-section (2), the Governor may by notification include within or exclude from the limits of the municipal area, any specified area. As soon as this exercise is done, and an area is notified to be a Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, then Section 7 of the Act of 1961 comes into play. 21. Section 7 of the Act of 1961 reads as under: “7. Effect of establishing Municipality for local area which ceases to be Town Area or Panchayat. - When any local area ceases to be a Town Area under the Bhopal State Town Area Act, 1954 (XIV of 1954) or a Panchayat under the Panchayat Law and immediately following such cessation a Municipality is established under Section 5 for such area, then, as from the date of establishment of the Municipality (hereinafter in this Section referred to 6 as the specified date) the following consequences shall ensue, namely:- (a) the Town Area Committee or the Panchayat, as the case may be, shall cease to exist; (b) there shall be constituted a committee in accordance with the provision of Section 16 to exercise the power of the Council pending its constitution; xxx xxx xxx” 22. From reading of the above, it is apparent that once an area ceases to be town area or panchayat, a duty is cast upon the State Government to constitute a committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 to exercise the powers of the Council pending its constitution. Section 16 of the Act of 1961 reads as under: “16. Exercise of powers of Council pending its constitution- (1) When an area is declared to be a Municipality for the first time under this Act, the State Government shall, by notification, constitute a Committee consisting of a President, a Vice- President and such number of members as it may deem fit and such Committee shall be deemed to be a Council for the purpose of this Act: 7 Provided that no person shall be appointed as President or Vice President or member of such a Committee who is ineligible to hold such office in the Council under this Act. (2) A Committee constituted under sub-section (1) shall continue to function until a Council is constituted under this Act or until the expiration of six months from the date of its constitution whichever is earlier…..” 23. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the second proviso to Section 5 which states that when an area is notified to be a transitional area, the Gram Panchayat having jurisdiction over such area shall continue to function until a duly elected Nagar Panchayat is constituted under this Act. However, the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the fact that the above arrangement is for the transitional period and not after the notification of Section 5 of the Act of 1961 by which the Nagar Panchayat or the Municipal Council has come into existence. The meaning of any Section of an Act has to be derived from the intention of the legislature and from the facts and circumstances of the present cases, it appears that the intention of the legislature was that for a limited period i.e. till the transitional phase, the body elected earlier would continue to function but as soon as 8 the notification under Section 5 is issued, Section 7 and 16 of the Act of 1961 would come into play and the State Government would be bound to constitute a Committee. 24. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the writ petitioners on the circular dated 20.03.2003 is of no assistance to the writ petitioners as it is well settled that any executive instructions cannot override the statute or statutory rules. In Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India {(1973) 3 SCC 862}, the Apex Court has observed that the executive instructions have to be in conformity with the rules and not inconsistent therewith. In State of Orissa & Others v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo {(2007) 15 SCC 129}, the Apex Court has reiterated that a purported policy decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot override the statute or statutory rules far less the constitutional provisions. 25. Further, in State of Kerala v. K. Prasad {(2007) 7 SCC 140}, it has been observed by the Apex Court as under: “10...It needs little emphasis that the Rules are meant to be and have to be complied with and enforced scrupulously. Waiver or even relaxation of any rule, unless such power exists under the rules,is bound to provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism, which is totally opposed to the rule of law and our 9 constitutional values. It goes without saying that even an executive order is required to be made strictly in consonance with the rules. Therefore, when an executive order is called in question, while exercising the power of judicial review the court is required to see whether the Government has departed from such rules and if so, the action, of the Government is liable to be struck down.” 26. In view of the above discussion, we are in disagreement with the observations and findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and as such, the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3459/2024 and connected writ petitions, are quashed and the appeals filed by the appellant/State are allowed. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners viz. WPC No. 3459/2024, 3484/2024, 3464/2024, 3572/2024 and 3594/2024, stand dismissed.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, documents and other material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. The issue raised by the petitioners has already been considered and adjudicated upon by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision, which squarely covers the controversy involved in the present case. 10 6. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, which is binding upon this Court, the challenge raised by the petitioners to the impugned Gazette Notification dated 27.09.2023 cannot be considered afresh. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any distinguishing circumstance or subsequent development warranting a different view in the present matter. 7. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition, having been rendered infructuous in view of the aforesaid binding judgment of the Division Bench and being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat