Section 178 permits the State Government to withdraw District Panchayat functions upon requisite satisfaction.

The petitioners challenged the State Government’s notification dated 7 December 2018, issued under Section 178 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, by which powers, functions and duties earlier entrusted to the District Panchayat under Sections 65, 66 and 67, and other specified provisions, were withdrawn.

During the pendency of the petition, petitioner No. 2 died, and petitioner No. 1, Morbi District Panchayat, was not represented through its newly elected President.

The State Government had recorded that the withdrawal was necessary in the public interest.

The withdrawn powers were, at the time of hearing, being exercised by the Collector or officers authorised by the Collector under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.

There was no interim order against the notification, and the arrangement had continued for nearly eight years.

The petitioners principally contended that the withdrawal could be effected only after consultation with the State Council for Panchayats.

Whether the State Government validly exercised its powers under Section 178 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, by withdrawing the specified powers, functions and duties from the District Panchayat through the notification dated 7 December 2018.

Whether the notification was invalid for want of consultation with the State Council for Panchayats.

Whether the Court should interfere with the notification when the impugned administrative arrangement had operated without interruption for nearly eight years and the withdrawn powers were being exercised by the Collector or authorised officers.

The Court applied Section 178 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993, which empowers the State Government, upon being satisfied that a change in the nature of a matter has occurred and that it is necessary in the public interest, to determine that the matter shall cease to be included in the Panchayat Functions List and to withdraw the corresponding powers, functions or duties from the District Panchayat.

The Court also considered the statutory scheme under Sections 65, 66 and 67, whose powers had previously been entrusted to the District Panchayat and were withdrawn by the impugned notification.

The Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, provided the legal framework under which the Collector or authorised officers were exercising the withdrawn powers.

No precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the notification expressly recorded the State Government’s satisfaction that withdrawal of the powers, functions and duties was necessary in the public interest.

This fell within the statutory decision-making power conferred by Section 178, which the Court characterised as a matter for the satisfaction of the State Government.

The petitioners’ consultation objection was rejected because their own pleadings stated that no State Council for Panchayats existed; consequently, the alleged failure to consult such a body could not invalidate the notification.

The Court further relied on the fact that the revised arrangement had remained in operation for almost eight years, without any interim restraint or demonstrated hindrance, and that the powers were being exercised by the Collector or authorised officers under the applicable revenue law.

The Court also noted the petitioner District Panchayat’s lack of proper representation through its current President.

The challenge to the State Government’s withdrawal of the specified powers, functions and duties from the District Panchayat was rejected, including the objection based on absence of consultation with the State Council for Panchayats.

The Special Civil Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.