Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dungar Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20142/2024

1.       Motan Das S/o Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 13, Bhagat Singh Nagar, New Mandi, Gharsana,
         District Anoopgarh (Raj.).
2.       Sandeep Kaur W/o Shri Harpreet Singh, Aged About 34
         Years, R/o Chak 2 Str, Gharsana District Anoopgarh
         (Raj.).
3.       Rajender Kumar S/o Shri Purkh Ram, Aged About 53
         Years, R/o Village 3 Gd, Ward No. 5, P.o. 7 Gp-B, Tehsil
         Gharsana, District Anoopgarh (Raj.).
4.       Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ashu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 19, 24 As-C, Gharsana, District Anoopgarh
         (Raj.).
5.       Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 36
         Years, R/o Village - 3 Gd, Ward No. 5,po- 7 Gd, District
         Sri Ganganagar.
6.       Satnam Singh S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 54
         Years, R/o Ward No. 8 Chak 2 Str, New Gharsana, District
         Anoopgarh.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Local     Self     Department,            Government           Of    Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The       Secretary,         Department             Of       Panchayati     Raj,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       The     Director        Cum        Special        Secretary,        Local   Self
         Department,          Government            Of     Rajasthan,        Secretariat,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       The District Collector, Anoopgarh, District Anoopgarh.
                                                                       ----Respondents
                                   Connected With
               D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6097/2023
1.       Kripa Ram S/o Aasu Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Balesar
         Durgawata, Balesar, Durgawata, Balesar, Jodhpur.
2.       Pappa Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 25 Years,


                          (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                  (2 of 36)                           [CW-20142/2024]


         Devnagar,     Balesar,       Durgawata,           Balesar,          Durgawata,
         Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The District Collector, Jodhpur.
                                                                     ----Respondents
                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6181/2023
Samandar Singh S/o Babu Singh Tanwar, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident     Of    Ramdevra        Tehsil      Pokhran,           District    Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area,
         C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur 302016.
2.       Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department,
         G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil
         Line Crossing, Jaipur 302016.
4.       District Collector, Jaisalmer.


5.       Abhay Singh s/o Shri Kewar Singh aged about 56 years,
         r/o Ward no.05, Kesar Singh Ki Dhani, Ramdeora,
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
6.       Poonam Chand s/o Shri Satyanarayan aged about 29
         years, r/o 38, Nai Basti Ramdeora, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.


7.       Hari Ram s/o Shri Gumana Ram aged about 29 years, r/o
         Ward     No.3,Kumawato           Ka     Baas,       Ramdeora,          Pokran,
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
8.       Guddi w/o Shri Sawai Ram aged about 25 years, r/o
         1088, Bhilo Ka Bas, Ramdeora, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.



                      (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                        (3 of 36)                            [CW-20142/2024]


9.       Sawai ram s/o Shri Sona Ram Bheel, aged about 28
         years,       r/o      Bheelo       Ka      Bas,Ward            No.6,     Ramdeora,
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
10.      Moola Ram s/o Shri Uda Ram aged about 48 years, r/o
         Ward No.1, Kumawato Ka Mohalla, Mawa, Ramdeora,
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
11.      Barket Ali s/o Shri Rasid Khan aged about 28 years, r/o
         Nai Basti, Ramdeora, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                          ----Respondents
                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10028/2023
1.       Pradeep Kumar Bisnnoi S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged
         About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Behind Gram Panchayat,
         Goluwala Sihagan, 22 Jrk, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2.       Rohitash Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About
         38 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Goluwala Sihagan, 22 Jrk,
         Goluwala, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
                                                                            ----Petitioners
                                           Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area,
         C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur, 302016.
2.       Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, G-3,
         Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line
         Crossing, Jaipur 302016.
4.       District Collector, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
5.       The Sub Divisional Officer And Magistrate, Pilibanga,
         District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
6.       Panchayat Samiti Pilibanga, Through Block Development
         Officer, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
7.       Santosh w/o Shri Aadram, aged about 24, r/o Opposite
         Vishwarkarma Temple, Ward No.17, Goluwala, Niwadan,
         Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
8.       Manoj Beniwal s/o Shri Shiv Prakash r/o Ward No.1,
         Goluwala             Sihagan,            Tehsil         Pilibanga,           District
         Hanumangarh.
                                                                          ----Respondents


                            (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                  (4 of 36)                           [CW-20142/2024]



                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19119/2024

 1.      Dungar Ram S/o Shri Bhaga Ram, Aged About 53 Years,
         Resident Of Balesar Devnagar, Tehsil Balesar District
         Jodhpur.
 2.      Bhoma Ram S/o Shri Ananda Ram, Aged About 48
         Years, Resident Of Khari Beri, Tehsil Balesar District
         Jodhpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
 1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         Government         Of    Rajasthan,         Secretariat,            Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
 2.      Secretary, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
 3.      Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department Of
         Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
 4.      Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
 5.      District Collector, Jodhpur
 6.      Shri Babu Singh Rathore, Mla, Shergarh District Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents



                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4425/2023

  Gram Panchayat Barmer Magra, District Barmer Through
  Sarpanch Jogendra Kumar S/o Dewaram, Aged About 27
  Years, Resident Of Village Jato Ka Pada, Gram Panchayat
  Panchayat        Samiti        Barmer       (Rural),            District     Barmer
  (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
  1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self
          Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
  2.      Municipal Council Barmer, District Barmer Through Its
          Commissioner.
  3.      Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive


                      (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                   (5 of 36)                         [CW-20142/2024]



          Officer.
  4.      District Collector Barmer, District Barmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10828/2023
  Gram Panchayat Barmer Gadan, District Barmer Through
  Sarpanch Smt. Meera Devi W/o Shri Aadu Ram, Aged About
  50 Years, Resident Of Village Barmer Gadan, Panchayat
  Samiti Barmer (Rural), District Barmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
  1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
          Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
  2.      Municipal Council Barmer, District Barer Through Its
          Commissioner.
  3.      Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive
          Officer.
  4.      District Collector Barmer, District Barmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20795/2024
  1.      Jhunjar Singh S/o Baktawar Singh, Aged About 30
          Years, Resident Of Lalaniyon Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat
          Barmer Magra Presently Working As Ward Punch Of
          Ward No. 03, Gram Panchayat Barmer Tehsil And
          District Barmer (Rajasthan).
  2.      Mula Ram S/o Dalu Ram, Aged About 65 Years,
          Resident Of Maya Nadiya, Gram Panchayat Barmer
          Magra Presently Working As Up-Sarpanch Of The Gram
          Panchayat Barmer Magra.
  3.      Shankar Lal S/o Hari Ram Sansi, Aged About 45 Years,
          Resident Of Village Barmer Magra, Presently Working
          As Ward Punch Of Ward No. 1, Gram Panchayat
          Barmer.
  4.      Shiv Ram Prajapat S/o Chokha Ram Prajapat, Aged
          About       45   Years,      Resident        Of     Udainagar,      Gram
          Panchayat Barmer Magra Presently Working As Ward
          Punch Of Ward No. 4, Gram Panchayat Barmer Tehsil


                       (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                   (6 of 36)                            [CW-20142/2024]



          And District Barmer (Rajasthan).
  5.      Deva Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 55 Years,
          Resident Of Lalaniyon Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat
          Barmer Magra Presently Working As Ward Punch Of
          Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Barmer Tehsil And
          District Barmer (Rajasthan).
  6.      Ranu Kanwar W/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
          Resident Of Lalaniyon Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat
          Barmer      Magra      Presently        Working          As    Member     Of
          Panchayat Samiti, Barmer Tehsil And District Barmer
          (Rajasthan).
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
  1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
          Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
  2.      Municipal Council Barmer, District Barmer Through Its
          Commissioner.
  3.      Zila Parishad Barmer, Through Its Chief Executive
          Officer.
  4.      District Collector, Barmer District Barmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
(in WP Nos.20142/24,              Mr. Sachin Saraswat.
6097/23, 6181/23 &                Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria.
10028/23)                         Ms. Nidhi Singhvi.
                                  Mr. Surendra Thanvi.

(In WP No.19119/24)
                                  Mr. R.S. Choudhary with
                                  Mr. Sumer Singh Gour.



For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG
                                  assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
                                  Mr. Manish Patel
                                  Mr. Dixit Panwar.
                                  Mr. Divik Mathur.




                       (Downloaded on 28/02/2025 at 11:36:32 PM)
   [2025:RJ-JD:966-DB]                   (7 of 36)                    [CW-20142/2024]


        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on 07/01/2025 / 11.02.2025 Pronounced on 28/02/2025

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. The instant Civil Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20142/2024:

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or directions:-

(i) The notification dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be declared illegal and ultra vires the Constitution being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice & constitutional directions;

(i)a. The notification dated 17.07.2023 (page 38 of the paper book) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6097/2023:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order and direction:

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (8 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

1. The impugned notification dated 31.10.2022 (Annx.2) issued by the respondent authorities may kindly be quashed and set aside or in alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid relief, the respondents may kindly be directed to undertake exercise to consider the various factors specified, as per the provisions of law, in respect to the inclusion of Gram Panchayat into Municipality and after carrying out the feasibility and compatibility report and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the notification impugned dated 31.10.2022 be ordered to be amended accordingly."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6181/2023:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this petition for writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ/order/directions:-

(i) The notification dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure-1) may kindly be declared illegal and ultra vires the Constitution being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice & constitutional mandate and be struck down with all consequential directions;

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;"

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10028/2023:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ/order/directions:-

(i) The notification dated 26.06.2023 (Annex-1) may kindly be declared illegal and ultra vires and be struck down with all consequential directions;

(ii) All the proceedings and order pursuant to the notification dated 26.06.2023 passed, if any, may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (9 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19119/2024:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The impugned amended notification dated 23.10.2024 (Ann.11) and amended notification dated 29.10.2024 (Ann.13) issued by the respondent no.4 may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The notification dated 31.10.2022 (Ann.5) may kindly be ordered to be restored.

(iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to conduct the election of Municipal Board, Balesar Satta as per the wards constitute by the SDO, Balesar.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4425/2023:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

• That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notifications impugned dated 21.03.2023 (Annex-8) may kindly be declared highly illegal, unconstitutional and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

• That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the proceeding initiated by the respondents for alter the limit of Municipal Council, Barmer may kindly be declare highly illegal and unconstitutional.

• That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintain the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (10 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10828/2023:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

• That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notifications impugned dated 21.03.2023 (Annex-8) may kindly be declared highly illegal, unconstitutional and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

• That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the proceeding initiated by the respondents for alter the limit of Municipal Council, Barmer may kindly be declare highly illegal and unconstitutional.

• That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintain the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20795/2024:

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

• That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the notifications impugned dated 21.03.2023 (Annex-6) may kindly be declared highly illegal, unconstitutional and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

• That by an appropriate writ, order and direction the proceeding initiated by the respondents for alter the limit of Municipal Council, Barmer may kindly be declare highly illegal and unconstitutional.

• That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect and maintain the healthy judicial system in State of Rajasthan, by which the petitioner may get full justice may also be allowed."

2. At the outset, for the sake of brevity and convenience, in the

present adjudication, a tabular chart depicting the particulars

regarding the assailment herein, is as follows:

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (11 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

S.N. CW No. Date of Effect of Impugned Impugned Notification(s) Notification

1. 20142/25 07.11.2024 Municipality, Gharsana has been formed by taking the areas of various Gram Panchayats such as 24 AS_C, 3 STR, 2 STR, 2 GD-B & 4 STR.

17.07.2023 Relaxation in the norms fixed for constitution of the Municipal Board, Municipal Council & Municipality as such have been relaxed.

2. 6097/23 31.10.2022 Gram Panchayat, Devnagar has been included in the newly constituted Municipality, Balesar.

3. 6181/23 24.04.2023 Gram Panchayat, Ramdevra has been declared as Nagar Palika.

4. 10028/23 26.06.2023 Gram Panchayats, Goluwala Niwadan & Goluwala Sihagan, have been declared as Nagar Palika.

5. 19119/24 23.10.2024 Gram Panchayats Jalandhar Nagar, Jetsar, Kui Inda, Kui Jodha, Balesar Durgawatan, Khari Beri & Devnagar, which were included in Municipal Board Balesar vide notification dated 31.10.2022, have been excluded from the Municipal Board, Balesar Satta and the limit of Municipal Board, Balesar Satta is delimited upto Gram Panchayat, Balesar.

29.10.2024 Inclusion of Gram Panchayats Jalandhar Nagar, Jetsar & Balesar Durgawata, in the limit of Municipal Board, Balesar Satta.

6. 4425/23 21.03.2023 Village Barmer Magra (Gram Panchayat Barmer Magra) has been included in the municipal area of Municipal Council, Barmer.

7. 10828/23 21.03.2023 Village Barmer Gadan (Gram Panchayat Barmer Gadan) has been included in the municipal area of Municipal Council, Barmer.

8. 20795/24 21.03.2023 Village Barmer Magra (Gram Panchayat Barmer Magra) has been included in the municipal area of Municipal Council, Barmer.

3. The facts and submissions put forth by the counsel on behalf of

the petitioners respectively are as follows:

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (12 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

3.1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20142/2024:

3.1.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

notification dated 07.11.2024, whereby Municipality, Gharsana has

been formed by taking the areas of various Gram Panchayats such

as 24 AS_C, 3 STR, 2 STR, 2 GD-B & 4 STR. Further, notification

dated 17.07.2023 is also under challenge in the writ petition,

whereby relaxation in the norms fixed for constitution of the

Municipal Board, Municipal Council & Municipality as such have

been relaxed.

3.1.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a

notification was issued on 19.02.2021 as per Article 243(Q)(2) of

the Constitution of India laying down the various parameters for

declaration of the transitional areas as Municipalities.

3.1.3. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 17.07.2023

wherein the blanket relaxation has been given in favour of State

Government in the matter of declaration of Municipalities despite

having the parameters specified in the notification dated

19.02.2021.

3.1.4. Further letter dated 18.07.2024 was issued by the Director

& Joint Secretary, Department of Local Self Government,

Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to all the District Collectors in

which there were proposals for declaration of the Municipalities

from Gram Panchayats and the District Collectors were directed to

call for the public objections as per Section 101 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1994')

while giving the particulars relating to parameters indicated in the

notification dated 19.02.2021. In the said letter, there was no

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (13 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

mention of District Anoopgarh/Ganganagar in which Gharsana

Tehsil falls.

3.1.5. Finally, vide notification dated 07.11.2024, the Municipal

Board, Gharsana was formed pursuant to the budget proposal for

the year 2024-25 by taking the areas of various Gram Panchayats

such as Gram Panchayat Gharsana, 24 AS-C, 3 STR, 2 STR, 2GD-

B and 4 STR, etc., as mentioned in the said notification, while

exercising the powers given under notification dated 17.07.2023,

only on the basis of population criteria without giving any notice.

3.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6097/2023:

3.2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by this

D.B. Civil Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the

notification dated 31.10.2022 whereby the Gram Panchayat

Devnagar has been included to Newly constituted Municipality

Balesar. The petitioners sought relief of quashing the notification

dated 31.10.2022 and for declaration thereof as unconstitutional;

or in alternative the impugned notification be amended further by

fulfilling the requisites as contemplated in law.

3.2.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the provision

contemplated under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India and

the parameters enshrined therein have not been followed.

3.2.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the entire exercise

under Section 3(1)(A) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2009') has been undertaken

purely on the basis of collective population of various Gram

Panchayats which is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (14 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

3.2.4. Learned counsel also submitted that no public notice was

issued prior to one month of issuance of amended notification and

that no objections were invited by the concerned authorities.

Learned counsel additionally pointed out that the important

features of the concerned village that were not considered and the

parameters were not complied with.

3.2.5. Learned counsel, in support of the above submissions relied

upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

following cases:

(a) Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2018 SC 2352

(b) Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1987

SC 1239.

3.3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition 6181/2023:

3.3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

19.02.2021 the State Government issued a notification and laid

down certain parameters pertaining to population, population

density, etc., to be followed for converting Gram Panchayat to

Municipality. This notification was mandatory in nature. The

petitioner challenged the validity of notification dated 24.04.2023

whereby Gram Panchayat Ramdevra has been converted into

Nagar Palika. Meanwhile, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pokran,

District Jaisalmer preferred a communication to the District

Collector, Jaisalmer which according to the petitioners showed that

the parameters are not being met with.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (15 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

3.3.2. The petitioners sought relief of quashing the notification

dated 24.04.2023 and to declare it unconstitutional; and restore

the Gram Panchayat with all associated benefits.

3.3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the

constitutional mandate under Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution

of India has not been complied with and the same is apparent

from the impugned notification dated 19.02.2021 itself. In support

of this submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Champa

Lal (supra) and thereby further submitted that the parameters

prescribed in said notification ought to be followed.

3.3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that there has been

violation of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and that, no objections

were sought from the public.

3.3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the government

issued similar notifications wherein it considered the required

mandate. However, the same was not done in the case of the

impugned notification, thereby the same stands vitiated.

3.3.6. Learned counsel, in support of such submissions, relied

upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1987) 2

SCC 510, wherein it was held that even if there is an absence of

any provision under the municipal statute, opportunity of hearing

should be granted in case of its conversion to municipality.

3.3.7. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v.

Ashok Khetoliya (2022) 12 SCC 185 and submitted the same

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (16 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

has not dealt with the parameters to be provided under Article

243-Q(2) and further submitted that the afore-quoted judgment

relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Parmar

Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat (Civil Appeal No.

706/2021, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

24.02.2021) which pertains to Article 243-R and Article 243-S and

not Article 243Q. The counsel thereby submitted that a two-judge

bench cannot overrule a decision given earlier in an identical case

by a Division Bench.

3.4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition 10028/2023:

3.4.1. This petition lays a challenge to notification dated

26.06.2023, whereby Gram Panchayats, Goluwala Niwadan &

Goluwala Sihagan, have been declared as Nagar Palika.

3.4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide

notification dated 19.02.2021 the criteria for upgrading

Panchayats was outlined. Thereafter, on 09.05.2023, the District

Collector instructed the SDO to ensure compliance with public

notice and objections. Whereafter, on 16.05.2023, the SDO

directed compliance of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and Article

243Q of the Constitution of India but failed to initiate public

notice. After which, on 23.05.2023, the Panchayat Samiti

recommended upgradation and consequently, on 02.06.2023, the

SDO forwarded recommendations, resultant to which vide

notification dated 26.06.2023, the Gram Panchayats Goluwala

Niwadan and Goluwala Sihagan were upgraded to Nagar Palika.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (17 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

3.4.3. The petitioners sought relief of quashing the notification

dated 26.06.2023 and to declare it unconstitutional; and restore

the Gram Panchayats with all associated benefits.

3.4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that neither any mandatory

public notice was given nor any objections were invited as per

Section 101 of the Act of 1994.

3.4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been

non-compliance of the notification dated 19.02.2021, which

mandates consideration of parameters like population density,

revenue generation, and economic activities.

3.4.6. Learned counsel also submitted that there has been a

breach of Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution, requiring

consideration of specific parameters by the Hon'ble Governor.

3.4.7. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been

violation of principles of natural justice by excluding public

participation.

3.4.8. Learned counsel also submitted that RTI responses from

SDO, Zila Parishad and Gram Panchayats confirmed that no public

objections were invited or addressed. Further, both the Gram

Panchayats admitted that only a proposal was passed without

notice or consultation.

3.4.9. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned

notification has severely impacted residents of the concerned

area, as the same has led to loss of rural benefits to them such as

NREGA and other schemes critical to their agriculture-based

livelihoods; in this regard learned counsel also pointed out that

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (18 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

villagers raised objections via multiple representations, but the

same were ignored.

3.5. D.B. Civil Writ Petition 19119/2024:

3.5.1. Under challenge in this writ petition, are the notifications

dated 23.10.2024 & 29.10.2024.

3.5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent department has made mockery of mandate of the

Constitution of India, the Act of 1994 and the Act of 2009 because

firstly, the SDO, Balesar conducted the survey and prepared the

report as per the Article 243Q of the Constitution of India and

recommended declaring the Gram Panchayats namely, Balesar

Satta, Jalandar Nagar, Jaitsar, Kui Inda, Kui Jodha, Balesar

Durgawata, Khari Beri and Dev Nagar as municipal areas. On the

basis of the aforesaid exercise, a notification was issued on

31.10.2022, whereafter the wards were constituted and master

plan was also proposed, however, without following due process of

law the impugned notification dated 23.10.2024 was issued

whereby the 7 gram panchayats were excluded from the boundary

limits of the municipal board, Balesar Satta but within period of 7

days with malafide intention and under the political pressure

another notification was issued on 29.10.2024 whereby three

gram panchayats were included in the municipal area, 7 out of

which reflect the malafide on part of the respondent, as well as

the misuse of law and power.

3.5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said

notification has been issued without following due process of law

as the respondents were first duty bound to follow the procedure

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (19 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

prescribed in Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and to issue one

month's notice before exclusion of Gram Panchayat Kui Jodha and

Devnagar from the Municipal Board, Balesar Satta and to declare

the urban area of the municipal limit Balesar Satta to be a

Panchayat Circle.

3.5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the notification

dated 23.10.2024 has not been issued after following due process

of law prescribed in Section 101 of the Act of 1994; and that, the

notification dated 31.10.2022 has been withdrawn without

considering the fact that the municipal board has been constituted

after following due process of law, as prescribed in the Act of 1994

and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Thus the impugned

notification dated 23.10.2024 is highly arbitrary and contrary to

provisions of the Act of 1994 and Article 243Q of the Constitution

of India.

3.5.5. In support of the such submissions, learned counsel on

behalf of the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in

the following cases:

(a) Baldev Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR

1987 SC 1239,

(b) Vishwa Nath v. State of Rajasthan and ors., AIR 1983 Raj 188,

(c) Champa Lal (supra).

3.6. D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.4425/2023, 10828/2023 &

20795/2024:

3.6.1. In these petitions, challenge is laid to the notifications

dated 21.03.2023, whereby Village Barmer Magra (Gram

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (20 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

Panchayat Barmer Magra) has been included in the municipal area

of Municipal Council, Barmer ; Village Barmer Gadan (Gram

Panchayat Barmer Gadan) has been included in the municipal area

of Municipal Council, Barmer and ; Village Barmer Magra (Gram

Panchayat Barmer Magra) has been included in the municipal area

of Municipal Council, Barmer, respectively.

3.6.2. In regard to these petitions, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the arguments advanced in the above-

said other writ petitions may be considered for the purpose of

adjudication of these writ petitions as well, looking into the

commonality of the legal issues so involved.

4. Submissions made on behalf of the Respondents

4.1. Qua the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis violation of Article

243-Q of the Constitution of India, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot; Mr. Manish Patel; Mr.

Dixit Panwar; Mr. Divik Mathur, appearing on behalf of the

respondents in D.B.C.W.P. Nos. 20142/2024, 6097/2023,

6181/2023 and 10028/2023, submitted that the notification in

question is in fact a notification of the State Government. Since

the local Government falls in Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh

Schedule, it is the State Legislature alone which is competent to

legislate in respect of the Municipalities with only one limitation

that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with

the mandate of the scheme of Part IX-A of the Constitution. Thus,

the State Government is competent to divide the Municipalities in

the State into classes according to their income or other factors

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (21 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

like population, importance of the local area and, the Notification

came to be issued by determining the category of the Municipal

Corporation/ Municipal Council/Municipal Board.

4.1.1. It was further submitted that the reference to the

notification exercising powers under Article 243-Q issued by the

State Government vide notification dated 19.02.2021 and creation

of Class IV municipality vide notification dated 20.05.2022 already

finds its presence in the impugned notifications. Learned counsel

therefore submitted that the State Government has already

complied with Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India.

4.1.2. It was also submitted that it is pertinent to note here that

Article 243 Q (2) of the Constitution does not mandate the Hon'ble

Governor in regard to issuance of any notification for the reason

that ample discretion has been provided to the Hon'ble Governor

vis-a-vis issuance of notification. Further, in case a notification is

issued by the Hon'ble Governor, then, it would confer vide powers

upon the Hon'ble Governor to determine factors as it deemed fit

for setting parameters for constitution of municipality, and

therefore, the notifications have been issued in strict compliance

of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India.

4.1.3. In support of such submissions, reliance has been placed

upon the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Khetoliya

(supra).

4.2. As regards the maintainability of writ petition, learned Senior

Counsel submitted that the instant writ petition is not

maintainable by virtue of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of

India. Article 243-ZG has been inserted in Chapter IX-A of the

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (22 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

Constitution by 73rd amendment therein and is analogous to

Article 329 of the Constitution of India and Section 30 of the Act

of 2009 which bars the Courts from entertaining the writ

petition(s) wherein delimitation of wards or election dispute is

sought to be questioned.

4.3. On the issue of applicability of Section 3 of Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009, learned Senior Counsel submitted that

Section 3 of the Act of 2009 provides that the State Government

may by notification published in the Official Gazette declare any

local area not included within the limits of a Municipality to be a

Municipality. While taking such action, there is no condition in

Section 3, that any notice to be issued for the purpose of inviting

objections from the residents.

4.4. Qua the overriding effect of the non-obstante clause, learned

Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that Sub-

section (10) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009, clearly provides that,

"the provisions of Section 3 shall have effect notwithstanding

anything contained in the Act of 2009 or in the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj, Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) or any other law

for the time being in force". In such circumstances, Section 3 has

overriding effect over anything contained in the Act of 1994, thus,

Section 101 of the Act of 1994 will not apply and the procedure

prescribed will not have to be followed.

4.5. Qua the non-applicability of Section 101 of the Act of 1994,

learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 101 of the Act of

1994 provides for situations, wherein the limits of Panchayat Circle

are altered or caused to be altered or, as the case may be, for it to

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (23 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

be included within the limits of another Panchayati Circle, the

procedure, as provided under Section 101 has to be followed. A

bare perusal of the said provision will make it evident that the said

provision will only apply in the cases where alterations are made

in Panchayat Circles. In the instant matter, though different Gram

Panchayats have been declared and included in a Municipality and

for that purposes, it has ceased to be a rural area. In such

circumstances, Section 101 of the Act of 1994 will not apply to the

instant matter and therefore, there is no requirement of publishing

one month notice and inviting objections as provided under

Section 101 of the Act of 1994. It is clarified here that only in the

case of Dungar Ram bearing D.B.C.W. No. 19119/2024, it was a

case, whereby, gram panchayats were made and excluded from

the Municipality. Therefore, under these circumstances, the State

Government after issuing a notification under Section 3 of the Act

of 2009, issued a notification under Section 101 of the Act of

1994 in the case of the Dungar Ram. However, as far as the

present cases are concerned, it is clarified that Section 101 is non-

applicable on account that there is no creation of gram panchayat/

panchayat circle.

4.6. Qua the waiver of the requirement of doctrine of audi alteram

partem, learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions,

relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Ashok Khetoliya (supra), wherein it has been

held that the power of the State Government to make a

declaration under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 is legislative in

character because the application of the rest of the provisions of

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (24 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

the Act to the geographical area which is declared as a town area

is dependent upon such declaration and therefore, it was

envisaged that the maxim of audi alteram partem does not

become applicable to the case by necessary implication.

4.7. Qua the conflict between two non obstante clauses, learned

Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v.

Girnar Corrugators Private Limited and others, (2023) 3

SCC 210, wherein it has been held as follows:

"at this stage, it is required to be noted that Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act which is inserted in 2016 is also having a non obstante clause. Even as per the submission on behalf of Respondent 1, two enactments have competing non obstante provision and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments."

4.7.1. As per the settled position of law, if the legislature confers

the later enactment with a non obstante clause, then its presence

enunciates the intention of the legislature that the same should

prevail over any former conflicting non obstante clause.

4.8. Learned Senior Counsel, in addition to the aforementioned

submissions, submitted that after filing of the petitions before this

Hon'ble Court, no interim order was passed therein and therefore

the notifications at this stage have been executed and the

concerned municipalities are fully functioning. At this juncture, in

the interest of justice, the said fact also needs to be considered

for the reason that this Hon'ble High Court in case of Bhanwara

Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (25 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

6659/2023, dated 16.05.2023) and others has dismissed the

stay application and thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court also

dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal filed against the same.

4.9. In support of such submissions, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents also relied upon the judgments rendered in the

following cases:

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators Private

Limited and others, (2023) 3 SCC 210

2. Bhanwara Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and ors., SLP (C)

No. 17495/2023 dated 18.08.2023)

4.10. Apart from the above, learned counsel representing the

respondent No.8, submitted that the present respondent is an

agriculturist and resident of Panchayat Goluwala Siyagan and was

not initially a party to the petition, however, he had filed an

application for being impleaded as a party to the present case and

the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2023.

4.11. It was further submitted that the present case in nature of a

PIL is not maintainable more for the reason that it alleges the

process enumerated under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 which

provides for inviting objections or providing opportunity of hearing

have not been followed by the State.

4.11.1. In this regard, it was submitted that the contention as

raised by the petitioner is not maintainable as the State

Government has constituted Municipal Board Goluwala as per the

procedure prescribed under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 for which

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (26 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

there is no requirement of inviting any objections or providing

opportunity of hearing to local residents of the area.

4.11.2. It was also submitted that the differentiation between the

Act of 1994 and the Act of 2009 is writ large. The first difference

being in the definition itself, that is under the Act of 1994,

Panchayati Raj institution as defined under Section 2 (xvii) means

an institution of self government established under this Act and for

that purpose establishment procedure is provided under Section

101 of the Act of 1994 which provides for publication of notice in

the prescribed manner followed by a notification of establishment.

Whereas, under the Act of 2009, a Municipal Area means

territorial area of municipality as notified by the State Government

from time to time and for the said notification as required there is

no prerequisite to be followed, even Section 3 of the Act of 2009

which deals with creation of Municipalities, which states that the

State Government may by notification published in Official Gazette

declare any local area to be municipality meaning thereby no prior

procedure to give notice or call for objection etc., is required and

there is directly a notification required to be published by the

State for the purpose of creation/delimitation of municipality.

4.11.3. It was further submitted that the present petition has

been filed with malafide and vested interest of the petitioners who

are relatives of Sarpanch of Goluwala, Siyagan and they wanted to

be Chairperson of the Municipal Board but could not succeed in

their endeavours.

4.11.4. It was also submitted that even a specific resolution

passed by the Gram Panchayat Goluwala Niwadan and Goluwala

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (27 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

Siyagan on 21.04.2023 regarding the constitution of the

Panchayat into Municipal Board thereafter a detailed proposal was

prepared by SDO and sent to the District Collector, Hanumangarh

on 02.06.2023 for the same.

4.11.5. It was further submitted that the Goluwala Mandi which is

the main kingpin of the controversy is about 50 years old and is

highly populated and therefore it was divided into 2 Gram

Panchayats. Learned counsel further highlighted that this Mandi

overtime has evolved into almost a small town, thus it was felt

that proper organization and development for regulation is the

need of the hour and also a fundamental right of petitioner as

enshrined Article 21 and Directive Principles of State Policy of the

Constitution of India.

4.11.6. It was also submitted that due to limited budget and

financial constraints, development of area was also stagnated, the

problem of improper roads, street lighting, sanitisation, drainage,

water logging etc. became writ large and the present respondent

as well as other residents were being adversely affected and

therefore the constitution of Municipal Board is justified as the

same has led to the better organization and equipped

administration for the place.

4.11.7. It was lastly submitted that in addition to the

aforementioned, the State has a corresponding duty to provide for

the same and any attempt to stop the same by the persons having

vested interest is nothing but taking the municipality back from

the path of development.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (28 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. At the outset, this Court observes that that record of the case

and the facts pleaded in the instant petitions clearly reveals that

broadly the controversy involved in all the present petitions is

common, and therefore for the purpose of the present analogous

adjudication this Court deems it appropriate to set out the

following issues:

(i) Whether the impugned notifications are violative of the mandate of law required under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India?

(ii) Whether the modus operandi of issuing the impugned notifications by the State Government is in accordance with the statutory mandate provided under the Act of 1994, Act of 2009 and the Principles of Natural Justice?

7. This Court observes that in the instant case, the vires of the

aforementioned impugned notifications is under challenge and to

determine the validity of the same, it becomes pertinent to

determine if the same are intra vires the mandate and the

parameters laid under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India.

8. This Court further observes that by way of the 73 rd and 74th

Amendment Act, 1992, Part IX and IX-A were added to the

Constitution of India, which provided for the local self

governments. These were introduced as part of bringing into

reality the dream envisioned by the father of our nation to set up

local self governments and ensure grass-root democracy.

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (29 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

9. This Court also observes that for the purpose of this case, it is

relevant to refer to Article 243-P(e) of the Constitution of India

which defines the term "Municipality" to mean an institution of

self-government constituted under Article 243-Q.

10. Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

"243-Q. Constitution of Municipalities. - (1) There shall be constituted in every State-

(a) Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural to an urban area;

(b) a Municipal Council for smaller urban area; and

(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area,

in accordance with the provisions of this Part:

Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit by public notification, specify to be an industrial township.

In this article, "a transitional area", "a smaller urban area"

or "a larger urban area" means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non- agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part."

11. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case

of Champa Lal (supra), relevant portions of which are

reproduced as follows:

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (30 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

"Article 243-Q contemplates the constitution of three different categories of bodies known as (1) Nagar Panchayat for transitional area (2) Municipal Council for a smaller urban areas, and (3) Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area.

It is declared under Article 243-Q(2) that the expressions "a transitional area", "a smaller urban area" and a "larger urban area" (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Areas") would mean such areas as may be specified by the Governor by a public notification for the purpose of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. Article 243-Q(2) further obligates the Governor to have due regard to the various factors mentioned therein before specifying the Areas i.e., the population of the area, the density of the population, the revenue generated in the area for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit.

8. It, therefore, appears from the scheme of Article 243-Q(2) that the Governor is not free to notify "Areas" in his absolute discretion but is required to fix the parameters necessary to determine whether a particular AREA is transitional area or a smaller urban area or a larger urban area with due regard to the factors mentioned above. It is implicit that such parameters must be uniform for the entire State. It is only after the determination of the parameters, various municipal bodies contemplated under Article 243-Q(1) could be constituted."

12. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered in the

case of Ashok Khetoliya (supra), wherein while explaining the

scope of legislative power vis-a-vis Article 243-Q, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

"16. Since the local Government falls in entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, therefore, it is the State Legislature alone which is competent to legislate in respect of the municipalities with only one limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution. The scheme of Part IXA of the

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (31 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

Municipalities Act does not contemplate a separate notification under Article 243Q of the Constitution and thereafter under Section 5 of the Municipalities Act. As Section 5 of the Municipalities Act is not inconsistent with any provisions of Article 243Q of the Constitution, therefore, two notifications are not contemplated or warranted under the Scheme of Part IXA or the Municipalities Act as reproduced in the table above. "

13. This Court in light of the aforementioned observes that

discretionary power has been vested in the Hon'ble Governor

under Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India and a bare

perusal of the same, highlights that, it does not mandate issuance

of any notification merely on count of ample discretion having

been conferred. Further, in case such a notification is to be issued,

wide powers in this regard have been conferred upon the Hon'ble

Governor, to determine factors as deemed fit for setting

parameters for constitution of municipality. Thus, the impugned

notifications are in compliance of Article 243-Q of the Constitution

of India. Thus, the aforesaid Issue (i) stands answered

accordingly.

14. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered in the

case of Ashok Khetoliya (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court discussed the case of Champa Lal (supra) and settled the

question of law vis-a-vis discretionary power of the Hon'ble

Governor by referring to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge

Bench in the case Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of

Gujarat & Ors. (2022) 15 SCC 364, relevant portions of which

are reproduced as follows:

"13. In Champa Lal, this Court had struck down a notification issued by the Governor of the State of Rajasthan holding that

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (32 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

in the absence of notification which meets the requirement of Article 243Q(2), the entire exercise undertaken by the State of Rajasthan in upgrading the Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to be a Nagarpalika is inconsistent with the requirements provided thereof under the Constitution.

"14. We find that such judgment is not in tune with the scheme of the Constitution and is contrary to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court reported as Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.7 wherein the vires of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 were subject matter of challenge on the ground that the State law has provided more than one representative from a single Ward and, thus, this provision is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 243R and Article 243S of the Constitution. This Court held as under:

"19. The power of competent Legislature, i.e., State Legislature in the light of enabling provisions provided in the Constitution with regard to framing of laws concerning Legislature cannot be whittled down by way of restrictive interpretation as contended by the appellants. The State Legislature in federal set up specially in the matter of local Government are to enable enough seats to adopt the reservation based on local body.

xxx xxx xxx

35. The ratio which can be culled out from the above judgment is that power of the State to legislate within its legislative competence is plenary and the same cannot be curtailed in the absence of an express limitation placed on such power in the Constitution itself."

15. This Court therefore observes that in the present case, the

legislature is competent to enact any legislation within its

competency and the power of the legislature cannot be whittled

down or curtailed in absence of any express provision in that

regard. Therefore, the provisions contained in the Act of 1994 and

the Act of 2009 are well within the legislative power of the

legislature and any administrative/executive action pursuant to

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (33 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

the same will also be intra-vires the constitutional scheme and the

principles of natural justice.

16. This Court further observes that the legality of the impugned

notifications and the scope of non-interference in the instant case,

depends upon the compliance with provisions of the Act of 1994

and the Act of 2009.

16.1. The relevant provisions in the present case are Section 3 of

the Act of 2009 and Section 101 of the Act of 1994, which are

reproduced as hereunder:

"3. Delimitation of Municipalities. - (1) The State Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, declare any local area not included within the limits of a Municipality to be a Municipality, or include any such area in a Municipality, or exclude any local area from a Municipality, or otherwise alter the limits of any Municipality and when (a) any local area is declared as, or included in, a Municipality, or (b) any local area is excluded from a Municipality, or (c) the limits of a Municipality are otherwise altered, by amalgamation of one Municipality into another or by splitting up a Municipality into two or more Municipalities...

(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Section its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994) or any other law for the time being in force."

"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 and 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; ...

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (34 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

(7) Save as otherwise provided in this section its provisions shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rajasthan Municipaities Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act 38 of 1959) or any other law for the time being in force."

17. This Court observes that, the bone of the contention in the

instant case, lies in the applicability of the Act of 1994 and the Act

of 2009. The relevant provisions in the present case are Section 3

of the Act of 2009 and Section 101 of the Act of 1994. Section 3

does not expressly provide for any requirement vis-a-vis notice,

however, Section 101 presents the requirement of one month's

notice.

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which

expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses

respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and

corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for

resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first

answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will

prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause.

17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment

rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra),

the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing

non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non

obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the

earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the

Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act

of 1994.

17.3. This Court therefore observes that, in such a scenario

Section 3 of the Act of 2009 would prevail over Section 101 of the

[2025:RJ-JD:966-DB] (35 of 36) [CW-20142/2024]

Act of 1994, and in such a case, the requirement of one month

notice as enshrined under Section 101 is not necessary to be

complied with.

18. Further, with regard to the submission made on behalf of the

petitioners regarding the failure to fulfil the principles of natural

justice, specially the maxim of Audi Alteram Partem, this Court is

conscious of the ratio laid down in the case of Ashok Khetoliya

(supra), relevant paras of which are reproduced as follows:

"11. This Court in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. held as under:

"7. We are concerned in the present case with the power of the State Government to make a declaration constituting a geographical area into a town area under Section 3 of the Act which does not require the State Government to make such declaration after giving notice of its intention so to do to the members of the public and inviting their representations regarding such action. The power of the State Government to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Act is legislative in character because the application of the rest of the provisions of the Act to the geographical area which is declared as a town area is dependent upon such declaration. Section 3 of the Act is in the nature of a conditional legislation. Dealing with the nature of functions of a non- judicial authority, Prof. S.A. De Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd Edn.) observes at p. 163:

"However, the analytical classification of a function may be a conclusive factor in excluding the operation of the audi alteram partem rule. It is generally assumed that in English law the making of a subordinate legislative instrument need not be preceded by notice or hearing unless the parent Act so provides." xx xx xx