Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Jorawar Singh Rathore S/o Mangal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan –Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13356 of 2024
Decided on : 03-09-2024
Panchayat - Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 95, 101 - The court interpreted Sections 95 and 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, concluding that the appointment of an Administrator was not warranted as the Gram Panchayat was reconstituted, not dissolved.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges a notification appointing an Administrator for the newly constituted Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura, following the reconstitution of Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd after two of its villages were included in a new municipality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification for appointing an Administrator was invalid as the Gram Panchayat had not been dissolved but merely reconstituted, thus the provisions for appointing an Administrator under the Act did not apply.
Issues: Whether the notification for appointing an Administrator was valid given that the Gram Panchayat was reconstituted and not dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions for appointing an Administrator under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, apply only in cases of dissolution, which was not the situation here.
Result: The notification dated 29.07.2024 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.4) whereby an Administrator has been sought to be appointed qua the newly constituted Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura.
2. The facts are that vide notification dated 31.05.2022, a new municipality namely ‘Marwar Junction’ was constituted and two Villages Hemliyawas Khurd and Hemliyawas Kalan, from Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd were included in the said newly constituted municipality. Earlier, Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd comprised of five villages out of which two were included in the newly constituted municipality. Therefore, Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd remained with three villages namely, Karoliya, Rewadiya and Narsinghpura and hence, Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas Khurd was reconstituted and named as ‘Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura’. For the said purpose, notification dated 25.07.2023 was issued.
3. After the constitution of Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura vide notification dated 25.07.2023, the earlier members of the Gram Panchayat continued to function. However, after a period of almost one year, vide notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.4), the Development Officer of Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura has been sought to be appointed as an Administrator till the election of representatives of the newly constituted Gram Panchayat and their first meeting.
It is the said notification dated 29.07.2024 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right sought to be exercised while passing the notification dated 29.07.2024, has been reflected to be in terms of Sections 95 & 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1994’). However, none of the said provisions prescribe for appointment of an Administrator in cases of reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the notification dated 25.07.2023 as well as 29.07.2024 makes it clear that Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas has been reconstituted and renamed as ‘Gram Panchayat Narsinghpura’. Gram Panchayat Hemliyawas was never dissolved which is a sine qua non for application of provisions of Section 101 of the Act of 1994.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Gram Panchayat having not been dissolved, the powers under Section 101(1) of the Act of 1994 could not have been exercised by the State Authorities. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, had the intention of the State Authorities been to constitute a new body, the elections for the said purpose within a period of six months of the notification dated 25.07.2023 ought to have been conducted. The same having not been conducted within the said time period, an Administrator, after the said time having lapsed, could not have been appointed. He submits that the elections, whatsoever, have not even been notified till date and therefore, the intention of State Authorities is somehow to restrain the elected representatives from functioning.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department submits that appointment of an Administrator is a natural consequence of the existing Panchayat having been dissolved. He submits that in terms of Section 95 of the Act of 1994, all the powers and duties of a Panchayati Raj Institution to be exercised and performed by an Administrator is the first consequence of a Panchayati Raj Institution having been dissolved under the Act of 1994. Further, in terms of Proviso to Section 101(2), where the Panchayat stands dissolved, appointment of an Administrator is a must. Therefore, the notification dated 29.07.2024 is perfectly valid and in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1994.
7. In support of his submissions, learned AAG relied upon a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Mund & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 112 = RLW 2010 (1) Raj. 760.
8. Heard lea
The court established that an Administrator cannot be appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, when a Gram Panchayat is reconstituted rather than dissolved.
An Administrator can only be appointed when a Panchayat is dissolved, not when it is merely reconstituted.
Point of law : intention of the Legislature that the effect of expression "the elected member of the Grama Panchayat cease to be member" as used in Section 8(3) is to state that for the purpose of ex....
The appointment/continuance of the existing elected body as Administrator after the expiration of their term would be contrary to the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution and the Maharashtra V....
Respondent-State Government is required to hold elections to the Nelamangala CMC and reconstitute Council in terms of Section 358 of Act. Since it has been noticed by this Court that the process of d....
The notifications for municipal formation and alteration complied with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.
The appointment of an Administrator can be justified based on the non-cooperation of Panches and the failure of the Gram Panchayat to perform its duty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
