Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jorawar Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36654) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:36654]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13356/2024
Jorawar Singh Rathore S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 76 Years,
Resident Of - Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura, Tehsil- Marwar
Junction, Dist. - Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Pali, Dist.-Pali, Raj.
3. Village Deveopment Officer, Gram Panchayat
Narsinghpura, Tehsil- Marwar Junction, Dist. - Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Shreemali
Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AAG with
Mr. Kuldeep Solanki
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
Reportable
03/09/2024
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the
notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.4) whereby an Administrator
has been sought to be appointed qua the newly constituted Gram
Panchayat Narsinghpura.
2. The facts are that vide notification dated 31.05.2022, a new
municipality namely 'Marwar Junction' was constituted and two
Villages Hemliyawas Khurd and Hemliyawas Kalan, from Gram
Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd were included in the said newly
constituted municipality. Earlier, Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas
Khurd comprised of five villages out of which two were included in
the newly constituted municipality. Therefore, Gram Panchayat
Hemliyawas Khurd remained with three villages namely, Karoliya,
Rewadiya and Narsinghpura and hence, Gram Panchayat
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (2 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
Hemliyawas Khurd was reconstituted and named as 'Gram
Panchayat Narsinghpura'. For the said purpose, notification dated
25.07.2023 was issued.
3. After the constitution of Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura vide
notification dated 25.07.2023, the earlier members of the Gram
Panchayat continued to function. However, after a period of
almost one year, vide notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.4), the
Development Officer of Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura has been
sought to be appointed as an Administrator till the election of
representatives of the newly constituted Gram Panchayat and their
first meeting.
It is the said notification dated 29.07.2024 which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right
sought to be exercised while passing the notification dated
29.07.2024, has been reflected to be in terms of Sections 95 &
101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as, 'the Act of 1994'). However, none of the said
provisions prescribe for appointment of an Administrator in cases
of reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submits
that a bare perusal of the notification dated 25.07.2023 as well as
29.07.2024 makes it clear that Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas has
been reconstituted and renamed as 'Gram Panchayat
Narsinghpura'. Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas was never dissolved
which is a sine qua non for application of provisions of Section 101
of the Act of 1994.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Gram Panchayat having
not been dissolved, the powers under Section 101(1) of the Act of
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (3 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
1994 could not have been exercised by the State Authorities.
Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, had the
intention of the State Authorities been to constitute a new body,
the elections for the said purpose within a period of six months of
the notification dated 25.07.2023 ought to have been conducted.
The same having not been conducted within the said time period,
an Administrator, after the said time having lapsed, could not have
been appointed. He submits that the elections, whatsoever, have
not even been notified till date and therefore, the intention of
State Authorities is somehow to restrain the elected
representatives from functioning.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Department submits that appointment of
an Administrator is a natural consequence of the existing
Panchayat having been dissolved. He submits that in terms of
Section 95 of the Act of 1994, all the powers and duties of a
Panchayati Raj Institution to be exercised and performed by an
Administrator is the first consequence of a Panchayati Raj
Institution having been dissolved under the Act of 1994. Further,
in terms of Proviso to Section 101(2), where the Panchayat stands
dissolved, appointment of an Administrator is a must. Therefore,
the notification dated 29.07.2024 is perfectly valid and in
consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1994.
7. In support of his submissions, learned AAG relied upon a
judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Tulsi Ram Mund & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 112 = RLW 2010 (1) Raj. 760.
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (4 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. The issue which arises is - Whether the present is a case of
dissolution of the Gram Panchayat or of reconstitution?
Notification dated 25.07.2023 mentions the new Panchayat
Narsinghpura as "पुनर्गठित / पुनर्सिमांकित / नवसजि
ृ त ग्राम पंचायत का नाम".
Meaning thereby, the notification itself refers the present to be a
reconstituted/re-demarcated/newly constituted Gram Panchayat.
The said notification, or for that matter, even the notification dated
29.07.2024 does not talk of the Panchayat Samiti been dissolved.
What has been done in the present matter is that out of the
existing Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd, two villages have
been excluded and included in the newly constituted municipality
Marwar Junction. Therefore, the said action clearly is covered by
Section 101 (1)(d) of the Act of 1994 which prescribes the said
condition as under:
"101. Alteration in the limits of a Panchayati
Raj Institution-
(1) The State Government may, at any time,
after one month's notice published in the
prescribed manner either on its own motion or at
the request made in this behalf, and by
notification in the Official Gazette-
(a) declare the whole or a part of any local area
included within the limits of a Municipality to be a
Panchayat Circle; or
(b) include in a Panchayat Circle any such local
area or a part thereof or, as the case may be, any
local area included within the limits of another
Panchayat Circle; or
(c) otherwise alter the limits of a Panchayat Circle
by amalgamating one Panchayat Circle into
another or by splitting up a Panchayat Circle into
two or more Panchayat Circles; or
(d) exclude the whole or a part of any local
area from a Panchayat Circle, whether on its
ceasing to be a rural area or, as the case may
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (5 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
be, for its being included within the limits of
another Panchayat Circle."
10. The consequent action in pursuance to any action taken
under Section 101 (1) of the Act of 1994 has been prescribed in
Section 101 (2) of the Act of 1994. Section 101 (2) of the Act of
1994 prescribes as under:
"101. Alteration in the limits of a Panchayati
Raj Institution-
(2) Upon any action being taken under Sub-
Section (1), the State Government shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
any other law for the time being in force, by an
order published in the Official Gazette, make
provision for the following, namely: -
(a) that, in a case falling under Clause (a) of that
Sub-section, a Panchayat shall be established for
the local area declared to be a Panchayat Circle;
or
(b) that, in a case falling under Clause (b) of that
Sub-section, the election of the members for the
additional local area shall be held; or
(c) that, in a case falling under Clause (c) of that
Sub-section the existing Panchayats shall stand
dissolved and new Panchayats shall be
constituted -in accordance with the provisions of
this Act within a period of six months from the
appointed day; or
(d) that, in a case falling under Clause (d), the
Panchayat shall stand dissolved or, as the case
may be, the members who, in the opinion of
the State Government, represent the local
area excluded from the Panchayat Circle
shall stand removed:
Provided that for so long as a Panchayat or a
new Panchayat is not established under
Clause (a) or, as the case may be, under
Clause (c), all powers and duties of the
Panchayat shall be exercised and performed
by such administrator as the State
Government may appoint in this behalf:
Provided further that no act of a Panchayat shall
be deemed invalid by reason of any vacancy of
the members referred to in Clause (b)."
11. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the
Proviso, wherein appointment of an Administrator has been
prescribed, refers only to Clause (a) and (c) of Section 101(1) of
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (6 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
the Act of 1994. Meaning thereby, if any action is taken in terms
of Section 101(1)(a) and (c), Proviso to Section 101(2) shall
apply. That is to say, in cases where whole or any part of a local
area of a municipality is included in a Panchayat Circle or in cases
where the limits of a Panchayat Circle are altered by
amalgamating one Panchayat Circle into another or by splitting up
a Panchayat Circle into two or more Panchayat Circles; all powers
and duties of a Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by
such Administrator as appointed by the State Government till the
period a Panchayat or new Panchayat is established in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of 1994.
12. Evidently, the present is not a case governed by Section
101(1)(a) & (c) of the Act of 1994. The present would definitely
be governed by Section 101(1)(d) of the Act of 1994 and hence
the Proviso above referred would not even apply.
13. So far as any action taken in terms of Section 101(1)(d) of
the Act of 1994 is concerned, it definitely would be governed by
Section 101(2)(d) which provides that the members who
represent the local area excluded from the Panchayat Circle, shall
stand removed. Meaning thereby, the representatives pertaining
to the two villages excluded from the existing Gram Panchayat
Hemliyawas Khurd, if any, could only have been removed.
However, the complete Gram Panchayat having not been
dissolved; and a new Gram Panchayat having already been
reconstituted as Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura, no action,
whatsoever, in terms of the Proviso was even required.
14. Further, even if, it is assumed that an Administrator was to
be appointed, the same was to be appointed only in cases where
[2024:RJ-JD:36654] (7 of 7) [CW-13356/2024]
the new Panchayat was not constituted. Herein, it is clear on
record that vide notification dated 25.07.2023, Gram Panchayat
Narsinghpura had already been reconstituted. Therefore, it is not
even the case of a Panchayat having not been constituted, qua
which, the right in terms of the Proviso to Section 101 (2) was
even required to be exercised.
15. So far as the ratio laid down in the case of Tulsi Ram Mund
(supra) is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the position of
law that an Administrator has to be appointed by the State
Government where a Panchayat is established in terms of Clause
(a) of sub Section (1) of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 or in
terms of Clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 101 of the Act of
1994. However, as observed above, the present is not a case
governed by any of these two provisions and hence, the said ratio
would also not apply to the present matter.
16. In view of the above analysis, notification dated 29.07.2024
(Annex.4) being totally in excess of jurisdiction and dehors the
provisions of the Act of 1994, cannot be affirmed and is hence,
quashed and set aside.
17. The writ petition is therefore, allowed.
18. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
380-T.Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
