The State is authorized to appoint an Administrator for Municipalities under Section 320 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 during the period following the expiration of elected officials' terms until new elections are held.

Order :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the Notification dated 25.11.2024 issued by the respondents for appointment of Administrator/Authority of the Rawatbhata Municipality may be quashed and set aside.

3. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that the Rawatbhata Municipality was constituted by the State of Rajasthan exercising the powers enshrined under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009’) and after conducting the elections, the Ward Members and its Chairperson were appointed. After the expiry of the tenure of the Municipality of Rawatbhata and other Municipalities, the State Government issued a Notification on 25.11.2024 stating that on completion of the tenure of 49 Municipalities of the State of Rajasthan, the Administrators/ Authorities are appointed to look after the day to day work of these Municipalities. The Notification dated 25.11.2024 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition on the ground that the Administrator/Authority appointed by the State Government vide Notification dated 25.11.2024 is dehors the law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there is no provision in the Act of 2009, whereby, the appointment of Administrator/Authority can be appointed in the situation when the tenure of the Municipalities established under the law has been completed. He submits that the provisions of Section 322 of the Act of 2009 have been disregarded by issuing the Notification dated 25.11.2024. He submits that the procedure provided under Section 322 of the Act of 2009 has not been followed while issuing the Notification dated 25.11.2024. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the Notification dated 25.11.2024 issued by the State Government appointing the Administrator/Authority of the Rawatbhata Municipality may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate & Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Notification dated 25.11.2024 has been issued strictly in accordance with the law and as per the mandate of Section 320 of the Act of 2009. He submits that Section 320 of the Act of 2009 mandates the State Government to appoint any officer, committee or authority after creation of the Municipality to function and exercise the powers and duties mentioned in the Act of 2009. He submits that although there are no facts pleaded in the writ petition that when the Municipality was constituted and when the term of the Municipality has expired, yet in the present case, the only challenge is made to the appointment of the Administrator/Authority by the State of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 25.11.2024, therefore, other factual issues are not being joined by him.

6. Learned Advocate General further submits that the State is fully empowered to appoint an officer, committee or authority under Section 320 of the Act of 2009 to look after and to perform the functions of the Municipality after its creation and before the same is established in accordance with law. He submits that in the present case, since in 49 Municipalities of the State of Rajasthan, the tenure of the elected members had expired on 25.11.2024, therefore, until the new Municipalities are established in accordance with Section 11 of the Act of 2009, the State Government has appointed an Administrator/Authority by Notification dated November 25, 2024, to manage the day-to-day functions of the Municipalities during this intergenum period. He, therefore, prays that the Notification dated 25.11.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity and the writ petition may be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

8. The undisputed facts in the present case are that after creation of the Municipality at Rawatbhata, the same was established and an elect