Ishwar Lal Shrimal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 104 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5457/2020

1. Rajendra Kumar Chotia S/o Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, Sharddha Nikunj Karnt Balaji Road, Dayanand Colony, Ladnun, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

2. Rashmi Sharma W/o Rajendra Kumar Chotia, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, Sharddha Nikunj Karnt Balaji Road, Dayanand Colony, Ladnun, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Local Self, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, Rural Development Department And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

4. Municipal Board, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ladnun, District Nagaur.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3196/2020

1. Ishwar Lal Shrimal S/o Shri Arjun Lal Shrimal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Bandi Holi Ka Sthan, Deogarh, District Rajsamand.

2. Shobha Lal Regar S/o Shri Ghisu Lal Regar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Outside Solanki Gate, Ambedkar Circle, Deogarh, Rajsamand.

3. Pradeep Singh Chouhan (At Present Parshad) S/o Ram Singh Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Keshring Ghati, Rajputon Ka Mohalla, Deogarh, Distt. Rajsamand.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(2 of 3) [CW-5457/2020]

2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner Rural Development Department And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

4. Municipal Board, Through Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Deogarh, District Rajsamand.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit, through Cisco Webex App For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, through Cisco Webex App

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

05/01/2021

1. The petitioners, in the captioned writ petitions, have

challenged the notifications issued by the State Government, in

exercise of powers under Sections 6 and 10 of the Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act of 2009') read with

Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994.

2. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the respondent - State, submitted that the

notifications under challenge have been published in the official

gazette and, therefore, in light of Division Bench judgment of this

Court dated 13.12.2019, in case of Jai Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17993/2019) so also in the

face of provisions contained under Article 243(z)(g) of the

Constitution of India, no interference can be made by this Court.

3. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

the judgment in case of Jai Singh (supra) is distinguishable on the

(3 of 3) [CW-5457/2020]

facts, inasmuch as, the said case related to election of panchayati

raj institutions, which are governed by the Panchayati Raj Act,

1996 and Rules framed thereunder, whereas in the present cases,

the impugned notifications have been issued under the Act of

2009.

4. Heard.

5. We are of the considered view that the matter in relation to

inclusion of a particular area or locality in a particular ward or in

the municipality, is required to be dealt with by the State

Government and there is hardly any scope for this Court to

interfere, particularly when the notification has been published in

the official gazette.

6. Following the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jai

Singh (supra), and in light of constitutional embargo contained

under Article 243(z)(g) of the Constitution of India, we are not

inclined to entertain the present writ petitions.

7. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

136-137-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)