CUTTACK: In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that creation or bifurcation of a Grama Panchayat is a matter of policy and lies within the domain of the executive, not something courts can mandate solely on population grounds.A division bench of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, in a recent judgment, dismissed an appeal filed by two persons seeking bifurcation of Khanguria Grama Panchayat and formation of Sampur Grama Panchayat under Bolgarh block in Khurda district.Underscoring the limits of judicial review in such matters, the bench observed: “Creation, alteration and bifurcation of Grama Panchayats is a matter of policy… What all would constitute ‘practicable’ is a matter, which does not admit judicial assessment. It is for the Executive to take a decision in its wisdom acquired through accumulated experience. A High Court cannot run a race of opinions with the Executive, in matters like this.”The appellants – Krushna Chandra Jhapatsing and Ajaya Kumar Mohanty had challenged a June 21, 2024 order of a single judge, which upheld the state government’s December 9, 2016 decision rejecting their representation. They contended that once a panchayat’s population crosses 10,000, bifurcation becomes mandatory.The court, however, rejected this argument, pointing to the wording of the law. In the March 9 judgment, the Bench said: “The language of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 is conditional and selectively mandatory… This Subsection employees the expression ‘so far as may be reasonably practicable’. Thus, it is not that once the population exceeds the limit, the State Government has to constitute a new Grama Panchayat by bifurcation.”Backing the single judge’s reasoning, the bench also cited the relevant notification to stress that population is only one of several factors. The notification states: “Grama Panchayats having a population around 10,000 or more shall be bifurcated… based on geographical location, natural barrier and administrative convenience…”While dismissing the appeal, the bench concluded that the Appeal was devoid of merits.
