Babu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4635-DB]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                  JODHPUR
                   D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 252/2026
    Babu Ram S/o Shankar Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of
    Meghwalon Ka Bas, Basni Khariya, Paladi Siddha, Bhopalgarh,
    District Jodhpur.
                                                             ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
    1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
            Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of
            Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
    2.      The District Collector, Jodhpur.
    3.      The Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
    4.      The Bdo, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
    5.      The Tehsildar, Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                    :     Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s)                    :     Mr. I.R Choudhary, AAG with
                                           Mr. Pawan Bharti & Mr. Kuldeep Singh
                                           Solanki


HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order 27/01/2026

1. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res

integra and already stands adjudicated by this Court at Jaipur

Bench in Sheela Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and

other connected matters1 along with other connected matters.

In the said writ petitions, this Court has considered the issue and

held as under:

"145. After analysing the said contention and giving thoughtful consideration to the provisions of the PESA Act, it is clear that the participation of the Gram Sabha is mandated only for the functions as prescribed under Section 4 of the PESA Act, which deals with the resettlement, rehabilitation or development of the TSP area. In absence of any specific statutory requirement prescribed under the Constitution of India or the PESA Act, it cannot be held that the prior consultation of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of delimitation, TSP Area is mandatory. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners in Bhanwar Lal Mundra (supra) and

1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025, decided on 14.11.2025

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:28:12 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4635-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-252/2026]

other judgments are not related to the issue so raised, therefore, the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Hence, the challenge given by the petitioners to the delimitation notifications on such grounds fails.

146. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the final notifications on the ground that on earlier occasion, some part of the Panchayat area has been included, whereas, while issuing the notifications impugned, the said notifications were withdrawn or the rural area is again excluded from the Municipality. Counsels for the petitioners contended that said exercise clearly shows arbitrary exercise of the powers by the State authorities and the same cannot be allowed to be sustained.

147. Learned Advocate General while responding to the said challenge, has reiterated the submission regarding scope of interference of this Court in such matters. It is contended that once the State Government after thoughtful consideration of, overall factors has taken a conscious decision, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon a recent judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Panwar (supra). The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:

"3. According to the petitioners, the Sub-divisional Officer at Raniwada started the process for creating 20 wards in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat Raniwada and for that purpose a notice inviting objection was published on 27th March 2025. The petitioners have produced on record the copies of notifications pertaining to Gram Panchayats Jhakhal and Dundlod both dated 02nd September 2024 to demonstrate that similar exercises were undertaken in other Gram Panchayats. However, the said process was abruptly halted because the Government Notification dated 26th March 2025 came to be issued and thereby the previous Notification dated 20th May 2022 was withdrawn. Criticizing the Government action in withdrawing the Notification dated 20th May 2022, the petitioners have pleaded that the Gram Panchayat Jhakhal and Gram Panchayat Dundlod are left untouched whereas a decision in respect of the Gram Panchayat Raniwada has been taken in the most arbitrary manner to reverse the declaration made under the Government Notification dated 20th May 2022 that the said Gram Panchayat shall constitute a Municipal Council.

5. Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that creation of a Nagar Panchayat or a Municipal Councilor a Municipal

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:28:12 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4635-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-252/2026]

Corporation is not a 2-way process inasmuch as once a decision is taken to create a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area or a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, the said decision cannot be reversed and the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat has to be restored to its original position.

10. The impugned Notification clearly mentions that the same has been issued under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan. The Notification dated 20th May 2022 was also issued under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act provides that a power to make rules includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add, to amend, to vary or rescind any rules so made. In "Rasid Javed & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr." (2010) 7 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authority which has power to issue a notification has undoubted power to rescind or modify it in the like manner. In paragraph no. (1) of the reported judgment in "Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited& Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." (2011) 3 SCC 193, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "41. By virtue of Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, when a power is conferred on an authority to do a particular act, such power can be exercised from time to time and carries with it the power to withdraw, modify, amend or cancel the notifications earlier issued, to be exercised in the like manner and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exercise of the power. It would be too narrow a view to accept that chargeability once fixed cannot be altered. Since the charging provision in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is subject to the State Government's power to issue notification under Section 49 of the Act granting rebate, the State Government, in view of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, can always withdraw, rescind, add to or modify an exemption notification. No industry can claim as of right that the Government should exercise its power under Section 49 and offer rebate and it is for the Government to decide whether the conditions are such that rebate should be granted or not.

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:28:12 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4635-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-252/2026]

11. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177 of 2025 is dismissed."

In view of the judgment cited above, the said ground of challenge is also not sustainable.

148. The conclusion emerges from the discussions made above, can be summed up as under :-

i) The power of the Government in issuing delimitation notifications is in the nature of conditional legislation.

ii) The scope of interference by the Constitutional Court in the matters of delimitation is limited to the scope of judicial review and the same can only be exercised in rarest of rare cases on establishment of proof of manifest arbitrariness or the decision being irreconcilable to the Constitutional values.

iii) The guidelines issued along with the notices for delimitation are not statutory in nature and thus, are not enforceable in law.

iv) The final delimitation notifications once issued, cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of non-adherence of the guidelines relating to population / distance criteria alone, where the decision has been taken after holistic consideration of various factors as per the constitutional scheme.

v) The writ petitions challenging the delimitation notifications cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners.

vi) The authorities considering the objections / suggestions received in pursuance of the notices of delimitation, are not required to act as a judicial / quasi-judicial authority to decide each objections with reasoned order.

vii) The principle of audi alteram partem is not applicable in the cases of delimitation.

viii) In view of the discussions made above, with regard to different grounds raised by the petitioners in different writ petitions, as adjudicated above, no case for interference in the present bunch of writ petitions challenging the final notifications of delimitation issued under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 or under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, is made out."

2. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is

dismissed mutatis mutandis.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ

5-divyaP/-

(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 10:28:12 AM)