Hon'ble LODHA, J.—The notification dated 10.11.09 issued by the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan appointing administrator to exercise all powers and perform the duties of the Panchayat Samities in respect of the reconstituted and newly created Panchayat Samities which have come into existence by splitting up existing Panchayat Samities, is impugned in these writ petitions.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the State Government decided to create certain new Panchayat Samities by splitting up existing Panchayat Samities in terms of the provisions of Sec. 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short “the Act of 1994”) . In this process by splitting up existing Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner two Panchayat Samities viz. Bikaner and Khajuwala were created. Similarly, by splitting up existing Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh, two Panchayat Samities viz. Anoopgarh and Gharsana and by splitting up existing Panchayat Samiti, Kherwara, two Panchayat Samities viz. Kherwara and Rishabdeo were created. While creating the new Panchayat Samities by splitting up existing Panchayat Samities, vide notification dated 10.11.09, the State Government has appointed Vikas Adhikari of the respective Panchayat Samities as the Administrator to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Panchayat Samiti under the Act of 1994 till the elections are held. Aggrieved thereby, these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners who were elected Pradhans of respective existing Panchayat Samities.

3. The writ petition nos. 10989/09, 10990/09 and 10991/09 relate to existing Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner and Panchayat Samiti, Kherwara respectively.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners stood elected as Pradhan of the respective Panchayat Samities under the provisions of the Act of 1994 and they are entitled to continue in the office till the completion of their term and cannot be removed without adopting the procedure laid down under Section 38 of the Act of 1994. The learned counsel submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 101 of the Act of 1994, the State Government could have appointed the Administrator for newly constituted Panchayat Samities which were not in existence earlier but the same standard cannot be applied for the Panchayat Samities already existing. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are not aggrieved by splitting up of the Panchayat Samities but while implementing the decision to create the new Panchayat Samities, the elected representatives right to continue in the office till the expiry of their term cannot be permitted to be affected adversely.

5. The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the provisions of clause 100(1)(c) and proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 101, the Administrator can be appointed only in respect of Panchayat circle constituted by amalgamating one panchayat circle into another and the new panchayat circle created by splitting up a panchayat circle but the administrator cannot be appointed in respect of the existing panchayat circle. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appointment of administrator in respect of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, Anoopgarh and Kherwara is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that by splitting up a panchayat circle into two or more panchayat circle, the original panchayat circle stands dissolved and the new panchayats have to be constituted in terms of the provisions of Section 101(2)(c) of the Act of 1994 and therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 101(2) till the elections are held and new panchayat is constituted, the administrator has to be appointed to exercise powers and perform duties in respect of newly created panchayats circles. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document