[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikas Manch vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 752/2026
1. Vikas Manch, Registered Political Party Through President
Lalit Kishore Jhanwar S/o Shyam Lal Jhanwar, Bhura
Chowk, Post Office And Tehsil Nokha, District- Bikaner
(Raj.).
2. Sukharam Bhadu S/o Sugnaram Bhadu, Aged About 40
Years, Near Bhadu Samudayik Bhawan, Kankariya Chowk,
Nokha, District Bikane,r Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Local Self
Department Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board Nokha, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani, with
Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate &
AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 05.02.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 05.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 06.03.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition
claiming the following reliefs:
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (2 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the
Petitioners that:-
a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; the
notification dated 01.09.2025 published in Gazette on
15.09.2025 (Annex.-6) may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; the
Respondents are directed to withdraw the notification
dated 01.09.2025 in light of judgment passed by this
Hon'ble High Court in the case of "Vikas Manch Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors." bearing no. SBCWP No.
12732/2025.
c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, thereby quashing the draft notification dated
27.03.2025 issued by the District Election Officer-cum-
District Collector, Bikaner (Annex.-4), proposing the
reconstitution of wards in the municipal area of Nokha,
District Bikaner;
d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; Declare the
entire exercise of constitution/reconstitution of wards for
the Municipal Board of Nokha undertaken pursuant to the
Circular dated 13.02.2025(Annex.-3) and culminating in
the impugned draft notification as unwarranted, ultra
vires, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and
consequently set aside the same in its entirety;
e) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; Direct the
respondents not to proceed further with any steps
pursuant to the impugned notification dated 01.09.2025
(Annex-6.) or take any further action for reconstitution of
wards in the absence of a delimitation exercise in
accordance with law.
f) by an appropriate writ, order or direction; until and
unless the objections of the Petitioners have not been
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (3 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
decided, a final publication of Reorganization of Wards
may not be issued.
g) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
Petitioner."
2. The petitioner No.1 is a registered political party and
petitioner No.2 is stated to be a social and political worker of
Nokha, District Bikaner. The present writ petition concerns the
reorganization and territorial structuring of wards of Municipal
Board, Nokha, District Bikaner.
2.1. Municipal Board, Nokha was constituted in the year 1952 and
presently consists of 45 wards. Earlier, the number of wards stood
at 35 and, pursuant to a delimitation exercise undertaken in the
year 2019-2020 on the basis of Census 2011 figures, the number
of wards was increased to 45. Elections to the Municipal Board
were thereafter conducted in the year 2021.
2.2. On 22.11.2024, a notification under Section 6 of the
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 was issued. Subsequently, on
13.02.2025, the State Government issued guidelines prescribing
norms for ward reorganization and delimitation. Thereafter, a
communication dated 27.03.2025 was issued prescribing a
schedule for inviting objections and undertaking ward
reorganization in various municipalities, including Nokha.
Objections were invited from the public pursuant to the draft
proposal.
2.3. The petitioners earlier preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12732/2025 challenging the draft proceedings relating to ward
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (4 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
reorganization. The said writ petition was decided by this Court on
14.11.2025.
2.4. During the interregnum, a notification dated 01.09.2025,
which was published in the Gazette on 15.09.2025, came to be
issued in relation to the reconstitution/reorganization of wards of
Municipal Board, Nokha. A representation dated 20.12.2025 was
thereafter submitted by the petitioners to the competent
authority.
2.5. Aggrieved by the notification dated 01.09.2025 and the
preceding draft notification dated 27.03.2025, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the impugned Notification dated 01.09.2025, whereby wards of
Municipal Board, Nokha have been reorganized and reconstituted,
is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rajasthan Municipalities Act,
2009 and liable to be quashed, as the same has been issued in
violation of the statutory scheme governing delimitation and
reservation of municipal wards.
3.1. Learned counsel submitted that the objection raised by the
respondents regarding the bar contained in Article 243ZG of the
Constitution of India is misconceived. It was contended that the
constitutional bar is not absolute and does not exclude judicial
review where the challenge is directed against jurisdictional
errors, mala fide exercise of power, or manifest arbitrariness in the
delimitation process itself.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (5 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
3.1.1. It was emphasized that the petitioners have approached
this Hon'ble Court prior to the commencement of the election
process and well before the issuance of any election notification.
The present challenge is not to the conduct of elections, but to the
legality of the foundational exercise of ward reorganization.
3.1.2. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma
v. State of Punjab [Civil Writ Petition No. 7548 of 2023 (O
&M) and other connected matters decided on 17.10.2023],
wherein it has been held that Article 243ZG does not operate as a
complete bar where the writ petition is filed prior to issuance of
election notification and where the challenge pertains to arbitrary
or jurisdictionally flawed executive action.
3.1.3. Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu
and Kashmir National Conference(Civil Appeal No. 5707 of
2023 decided on 06.09.2026), wherein it was categorically held
that constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene where
executive action disturbs the level playing field or is arbitrary, and
that mere efflux of time cannot be permitted to defeat legal rights.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that the exercise of ward
reorganization must strictly conform to Sections 3, 6 and 10 of the
Act of 2009. The statute mandates that delimitation be
population-based, rational and guided by objective criteria.
3.2.1. It was contended that the impugned notification does not
demonstrate adherence to uniform population norms across
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (6 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
wards. The absence of objective data reflecting parity of
population renders the exercise arbitrary and contrary to the
statutory framework.
3.2.2. It was further submitted that statutory discretion in
delimitation is structured and not unbridled. Any departure from
prescribed parameters amounts to jurisdictional error and vitiates
the exercise.
3.3. Learned counsel contended that the impugned reorganization
suffers from manifest arbitrariness and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
3.3.1. It was submitted that similarly situated areas have been
treated differently without intelligible differentia, and ward
boundaries have been altered without transparent reasoning or
demonstrable objective criteria.
3.3.2. It was emphasized that even in electoral matters, State
action must withstand the test of non-arbitrariness. Arbitrary
classification or manipulation of ward boundaries strikes at the
root of equality and democratic fairness.
3.4. Learned counsel submitted that reservation of wards for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and
Women must strictly follow the population ratio and rotation
mechanism contemplated under Section 6(4) of the Act of 2009.
3.4.1. It was contended that the present exercise does not reflect
proper population-based identification nor transparent rotation,
thereby rendering the reservation matrix legally unsustainable.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (7 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
3.5. Learned counsel distinguished the judgment in Anugrah
Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIRONLINE 1996 SC
1178), submitting that in that case the writ petition was filed at a
highly belated stage when the election process was substantially
underway.
3.5.1. In contrast, in the present case, representations were
submitted promptly and the writ petition has been instituted
without delay. There is neither acquiescence nor laches
attributable to the petitioners.
3.6. Learned counsel submitted that even if an election petition or
statutory mechanism is available, the same does not bar exercise
of writ jurisdiction where the challenge pertains to jurisdictional
illegality and constitutional violations.
3.7. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned notification
amounts to a colourable exercise of statutory power, undertaken
without transparent criteria and without disclosing objective data
forming the basis of delimitation.
3.7.1. It was urged that such an exercise undermines democratic
fairness and public confidence in municipal governance, and
therefore warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court.
4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents,
assisted by learned counsel, at the outset raised a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition. It
was submitted that the writ petition, which seeks to challenge the
delimitation and territorial structuring of municipal wards, is
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (8 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
barred by the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243ZG of
the Constitution of India.
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that Article 243ZG forms part of
the constitutional framework governing municipal elections under
Part IX-A of the Constitution and expressly prohibits judicial
interference in matters relating to delimitation of constituencies or
allotment of seats.
4.1.1. It was contended that the object of the said constitutional
provision is to ensure that electoral processes are not obstructed
by judicial intervention once the statutory mechanism of
delimitation has been undertaken by the competent authority.
4.1.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the constitutional
bar under Article 243ZG is analogous to the bar contained in
Article 243-O governing Panchayati Raj elections and Article 329
governing parliamentary and legislative elections.
4.1.3. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed
upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Guddi v. State of
Rajasthan, wherein the Division Bench held that once the
delimitation exercise culminates in a final notification, the Court
cannot cross the constitutional bar created under Article 243-O
and undertake judicial scrutiny of the delimitation process.
4.1.4. Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment
reiterates that the constitutional scheme draws a clear line
restricting judicial interference in electoral matters and that
challenges relating to delimitation cannot be entertained in
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (9 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
exercise of writ jurisdiction once the statutory process stands
completed.
4.1.5. It was thus argued that since the present writ petition
directly questions the territorial structuring of wards undertaken
under statutory authority, the same falls squarely within the
constitutional embargo contemplated under Article 243ZG and
therefore deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
maintainability alone.
4.2. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the
impugned notification dated 01.09.2025 has been issued strictly in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 and the said provision constitutes an
independent statutory source of authority enabling the State
Government to undertake territorial structuring of municipal
wards.
4.2.1. Learned counsel submitted that the legislative object of
Section 10 is not the constitution or composition of a municipality,
but the internal territorial organization of constituencies within an
already constituted municipal body. The provision operates in the
field of territorial demarcation and spatial structuring of wards so
as to ensure administrative convenience, equitable representation
and effective governance.
4.2.2. It was contended that Section 10 empowers the competent
authority to determine ward boundaries having regard to relevant
administrative and demographic considerations. The statutory text
of the provision does not make the exercise of such power
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (10 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
contingent upon the occurrence of any event contemplated under
Section 3 of the Act nor does it condition the exercise of such
power upon a fresh census under Section 6(2).
4.2.3. Learned counsel emphasized that the statute does not
contain any express limitation requiring that ward boundaries
remain frozen in the absence of a census revision. According to
the respondents, the legislative intent is to preserve
administrative flexibility so that territorial structuring of wards
may respond to evolving governance requirements.
4.2.4. It was therefore argued that reading a census-based
restriction into Section 10 would amount to importing conditions
which the legislature has consciously not incorporated in the
statutory text. Such an interpretation would run contrary to
settled principles of statutory interpretation which mandate that
Courts must interpret statutes as enacted and cannot supply
omissions under the guise of judicial construction.
4.2.5. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned notification
merely undertakes territorial structuring of wards within an
already constituted municipal body and thus squarely falls within
the statutory field occupied by Section 10 of the Act of 2009.
Learned Advocate General further submitted that the challenge
laid by the petitioners proceeds on an erroneous conflation of
Sections 6 and 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009,
though both provisions operate in separate and distinct statutory
spheres.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (11 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
4.3. Learned counsel submitted that Section 6 of the Act of 2009
governs the structural composition of a municipality, namely the
determination of the number and strength of seats or wards
forming the municipal body. The provision essentially deals with
the quantitative determination of representation.
4.3.1. In contrast, Section 10 governs the internal territorial
structuring and demarcation of those wards. The provision
addresses the spatial configuration and territorial boundaries of
wards within the already determined structural framework.
4.3.2. Learned counsel thus submitted that the legislative scheme
consciously separates two distinct exercises, namely:
• structural determination of seats or wards under Section 6;
and
• territorial demarcation and internal structuring of those
wards under Section 10.
4.3.3. It was contended that there exists no statutory language
creating any dependency, sequencing or conditional linkage
between the two provisions. The exercise of power under Section
10 is not contingent upon redetermination under Section 6, nor
does Section 6 impose any limitation upon the territorial
structuring contemplated under Section 10.
4.3.4. Learned counsel submitted that established principles of
statutory interpretation require that each provision in a statute
must be allowed to operate in its own legislative field. The
doctrine of harmonious construction mandates that both Sections
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (12 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
6 and 10 be read as complementary yet independent provisions
serving distinct statutory purposes.
4.3.5. It was further contended that the petitioners' interpretation
effectively introduces a restriction into Section 10 which does not
exist in the statutory text, namely that territorial structuring of
wards cannot be undertaken in the absence of a fresh census
exercise.
4.3.6. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha
Devi Gupta [(2025) 2 SCCC 271], wherein it has been held that
Courts cannot read into a statute words which are not there nor
supply omissions under the guise of interpretation.
4.3.7. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of
Tamil Nadu [(2002) 2 SCC 533], reiterating the principle that
casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court and that statutory
provisions must be interpreted strictly on the basis of their plain
language.
4.3.8. It was therefore submitted that treating Section 10 as
subordinate to or dependent upon Section 6 would collapse two
independent statutory mechanisms and defeat the legislative
design which preserves flexibility in municipal governance.
Learned counsel thus urged that Sections 6 and 10 must be
construed as co-existing but independent enabling provisions,
each capable of operation within its respective statutory field.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (13 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
4.4. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the
petitioners have not challenged the foundational notification
issued under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009
determining the structural composition of the municipality.
4.4.1. It was contended that the notification dated 22.11.2024
determining the number and constitution of wards was issued by
the competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 6 of
the Act of 2009. Learned counsel submitted that the said
notification attained finality as the same was never assailed by the
petitioners before any competent forum. It was argued that the
present impugned notification dated 01.09.2025 merely relates to
territorial structuring and demarcation of wards under Section 10
of the Act of 2009 and does not alter the structural composition
already determined under Section 6.
4.4.2. Learned counsel thus submitted that having accepted the
structural determination of wards under the notification dated
22.11.2024, the petitioners cannot now indirectly assail the same
by challenging the subsequent exercise undertaken under Section
10. It was therefore contended that the present writ petition
amounts to an indirect challenge to a concluded statutory exercise
which has already attained finality and therefore does not warrant
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned
Advocate General further submitted that the reliance placed by the
petitioners on the judgment in Sheela Kumari vs. State (D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2025 and orther connected
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (14 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
matters decided on 14.11.2025) is misplaced and proceeds on
an overbroad reading of the said decision.
4.5. Learned counsel submitted that a careful reading of the
judgment demonstrates that the Court in Sheela Kumari(supra)
primarily examined the statutory scheme of Sections 3 and 6(2) of
the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 in the context of census-
based redetermination of wards. It was contended that the
interpretative exercise undertaken in the said judgment did not
extend to, nor did it adjudicate upon, the scope and independent
operation of Section 10 of the Act of 2009 relating to territorial
determination and internal structuring of wards.
4.5.1. Learned counsel emphasized that the absence of any
discussion regarding Section 10 in the said judgment is significant,
as the central issue arising in the present case -- namely whether
territorial structuring of wards can be undertaken independently
under Section 10 -- neither arose for consideration nor was
decided therein. It was therefore submitted that the ratio of the
judgment in Sheela Kumari(supra) cannot be extended to
curtail the statutory powers conferred under a provision which was
neither interpreted nor examined in that case.
4.5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled
principle that a judicial decision is an authority only for the
proposition which it actually decides and not for what may
logically be inferred therefrom.
4.5.3. Learned counsel therefore submitted that extending the
reasoning of Sheela Kumari(supra) so as to read an implied
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (15 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
embargo into Section 10 would amount to judicial
supplementation of the statute, which is impermissible in law. It
was thus argued that the present controversy requires an
independent interpretation of Section 10 of the Act of 2009,
unencumbered by assumptions drawn beyond the scope of the
decision relied upon by the petitioners.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully
perused the pleadings on record as well as the material placed
before the Court.
6. This Court observes that the first and foremost issue which
arises for consideration is the maintainability of the present writ
petition in light of the constitutional bar contained in Article 243ZG
of the Constitution of India.
6.1. Article 243ZG forms part of the constitutional scheme
governing municipal institutions under Part IX-A of the
Constitution and expressly provides that the validity of any law
relating to the delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats
made under Article 243ZA shall not be called in question before
any Court.
6.2. This Court observes that the object underlying the said
constitutional provision is to ensure that electoral processes
relating to local self-government institutions are insulated from
judicial interruption and are allowed to proceed without
impediment once the statutory framework governing delimitation
and allocation of seats has been set in motion.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (16 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
6.3. This Court further observes that the constitutional embargo
contained in Article 243ZG is analogous to the bar contained in
Article 243-O governing Panchayati Raj elections and Article 329
governing elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. The
consistent constitutional philosophy underlying these provisions is
that challenges relating to delimitation or electoral arrangements
should not derail the electoral process through intervention in writ
jurisdiction.
6.4. This Court also observes that the Division Bench of this Court
in Guddi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2002/2020) has reiterated that once the
delimitation exercise culminates in a final notification, the Court
cannot cross the constitutional line drawn by Article 243-O and
undertake scrutiny of the delimitation process in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction.
6.5. This Court finds that the impugned notification dated
01.09.2025 relates to the reorganization and territorial structuring
of wards of Municipal Board, Nokha, which squarely falls within the
domain of delimitation and allocation of territorial constituencies.
6.6. This Court therefore observes that entertaining a challenge to
such exercise would run contrary to the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 243ZG, which seeks to preserve the sanctity
and continuity of electoral processes relating to municipal
institutions.
6.7. However, this Court also observes that the petitioners have
attempted to bring the present challenge within the limited
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (17 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
permissible sphere of judicial review by contending that the
impugned action suffers from jurisdictional illegality and statutory
non-compliance. In view of the said contention, this Court
considers it appropriate to briefly examine the statutory scheme
governing the exercise of power under the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009.
7. This Court observes that the next issue which arises for
consideration is the nature and scope of the power conferred upon
the State Government under Section 10 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 and whether the impugned notification
dated 01.09.2025 falls within the statutory framework
contemplated therein.
7.1. Section 10 of the Act of 2009 empowers the competent
authority to undertake determination and territorial structuring of
municipal wards. The provision operates in the field of internal
territorial demarcation of constituencies within an already
constituted municipal body so as to ensure effective governance,
administrative convenience and equitable representation.
7.2. This Court observes that the legislative object underlying
Section 10 is not the constitution of a municipality or
determination of its structural composition, but the spatial
organization and territorial configuration of wards forming part of
such municipal body.
7.3. The statutory text of Section 10 does not indicate that the
exercise of such power is contingent upon the occurrence of any
event contemplated under Section 3 of the Act of 2009, nor does
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (18 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
it prescribe that the said exercise must necessarily await a fresh
census as contemplated under Section 6(2).
7.4. This Court finds that the provision does not contain any
express limitation requiring that ward boundaries remain frozen
until a census revision takes place. The legislative design appears
to preserve administrative flexibility so that territorial structuring
of wards may respond to practical governance requirements and
demographic realities.
7.5. This Court observes that accepting the interpretation
advanced by the petitioners would amount to reading into Section
10 a restriction which the legislature has consciously not
incorporated. Such an interpretation would run contrary to settled
principles of statutory construction.
7.6. It is a well settled principle that Courts must interpret
statutory provisions as they stand and cannot introduce words or
limitations which the legislature has not chosen to include. In this
regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Devi (Supra) and
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) has
reiterated that Courts cannot supply omissions in a statute under
the guise of interpretation.
7.7. This Court therefore observes that Section 10 represents an
independent enabling provision empowering the State
Government to undertake territorial structuring of municipal wards
whenever administrative or electoral considerations so require,
provided the exercise is undertaken within the statutory
framework.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (19 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
8. This Court further observes that the principal argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioners proceeds on the premise
that the exercise undertaken under Section 10 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 is impermissible in the absence of a fresh
census exercise contemplated under Section 6. This Court finds
that such submission proceeds on an erroneous conflation of two
distinct statutory provisions which operate in separate legislative
domains.
8.1. Section 6 of the Act of 2009 governs the structural
composition of a municipality, namely the determination of the
number and strength of wards forming part of the municipal body.
The provision essentially addresses the quantitative determination
of representation.
8.2. Section 10, on the other hand, deals with the territorial
structuring and demarcation of those wards. The provision
operates in the field of spatial configuration of wards within the
structural framework already determined.
8.3. This Court observes that the statutory scheme thus
contemplates two distinct exercises: firstly, determination of the
number and composition of wards under Section 6; and secondly,
territorial demarcation and internal structuring of those wards
under Section 10.
8.4. This Court finds that there exists no statutory language
creating any dependency or sequencing between the two
provisions. The exercise of power under Section 10 is not
conditioned upon redetermination under Section 6, nor does
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (20 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
Section 6 impose any restriction upon the territorial structuring
contemplated under Section 10.
8.5. This Court observes that the principle of harmonious
construction requires that each statutory provision be allowed to
operate within its designated legislative field. Interpreting Section
10 as being subordinate to or dependent upon Section 6 would
effectively collapse two independent statutory mechanisms and
defeat the legislative design underlying the Act of 2009.
8.6. This Court therefore finds that the submission advanced by
the petitioners seeking to read a census-based restriction into
Section 10 cannot be accepted, as the same would amount to
importing limitations which the legislature has not incorporated in
the statutory text.
9. This Court further observes that the structural composition of
wards of Municipal Board, Nokha had already been determined by
the competent authority through notification dated 22.11.2024
issued under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.
9.1. This Court notes that the said notification determining the
number and structural composition of wards was never challenged
by the petitioners before any competent forum and has thus
attained finality.
9.2. This Court observes that the impugned notification dated
01.09.2025 has been issued thereafter in exercise of powers
under Section 10 of the Act of 2009 and relates only to the
territorial structuring and demarcation of wards within the already
determined structural framework.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (21 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
9.3. This Court finds that the present challenge, in substance,
attempts to indirectly question the statutory exercise undertaken
under Section 6, which has already attained finality.
9.4. It is well settled that a concluded statutory exercise cannot be
indirectly assailed by challenging a subsequent action which
merely operates within the framework already determined by such
earlier exercise.
9.5. This Court therefore observes that having not challenged the
foundational notification dated 22.11.2024 issued under Section 6
of the Act of 2009, the petitioners cannot now seek to invalidate
the subsequent territorial structuring undertaken under Section
10.
10. This Court further observes that considerable reliance has
been placed by the petitioners on the judgment in Sheela
Kumari (Supra) in support of the contention that the exercise of
ward determination cannot be undertaken in the absence of a
fresh census exercise.
10.1. This Court finds that a careful reading of the said judgment
reveals that the interpretative exercise undertaken therein was
primarily confined to the statutory scheme of Sections 3 and 6(2)
of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 in the context of census-
linked redetermination of wards.
10.2. This Court observes that the scope and independent
operation of Section 10 of the Act of 2009 relating to territorial
determination and internal structuring of wards did not arise for
consideration in the said judgment.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (22 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
10.3. The absence of any discussion regarding Section 10 in the
said decision assumes significance, as the central issue arising in
the present case concerns the independent statutory power of
territorial structuring of wards under Section 10.
10.4. It is a settled principle of law that a judicial decision is an
authority only for the proposition which it actually decides and not
for what may logically be inferred therefrom. The ratio of a
judgment cannot be extended to situations which were neither
argued nor adjudicated.
10.5. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma
Sundara Rao (Supra) has reiterated that Courts cannot expand
the ratio of a decision to supply omissions in the statutory
framework.
10.6. This Court therefore finds that the reliance placed by the
petitioners on Sheela Kumari(Supra) is misplaced and the said
judgment cannot be construed as laying down any binding
proposition that territorial structuring of wards under Section 10 is
impermissible in the absence of a fresh census exercise.
10.6.1. In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court observes
that the impugned notification dated 01.09.2025 has been issued
in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 relating to territorial structuring of wards
within an already constituted municipal body.
11. This Court further finds that the structural composition of
wards had already been determined by the earlier notification
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10753-DB] (23 of 23) [CW-752/2026]
dated 22.11.2024 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 2009,
which was never challenged and has thus attained finality.
11.1. This Court also observes that the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any jurisdictional illegality, statutory violation or
constitutional infirmity in the exercise undertaken by the
competent authority.
11.2. This Court therefore finds no ground warranting interference
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, particularly in view of the constitutional restraint
embodied in Article 243ZG governing electoral matters.
11.3. Consequently, the present writ petition deserves no
interference by this Court and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. All
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:57:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
