SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1694

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, JJ.
Mahendra Jain, S/o. Suraj Mal Jain and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Deepika Soni, Ms. Anjali Gehlot, Ms. Shilpa Soni
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Anurag Shukla

The court affirmed that notifications regarding municipalities must adhere to constitutional parameters, and the principle of natural justice does not apply without express provisions requiring notice.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Articles 243-P and 243-Q - Municipalities - The court addressed the constitutionality of notifications issued under Article 243-Q concerning the establishment of municipalities, emphasizing the necessity for uniform parameters set by the Governor based on specified factors. (Paras 9-13)

(B) Legislative Power - The court affirmed that the State Legislature has the authority to legislate on municipalities, provided such legislation aligns with the constitutional framework. (Paras 15-16)

(C) Natural Justice - The court ruled that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' does not apply in the absence of express provisions requiring notice or hearing prior to legislative declarations. (Paras 18-19)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenged notifications regarding the constitution of municipalities, asserting non-compliance with constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the notifications were issued in accordance with constitutional provisions and did not violate principles of natural justice.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of notifications under Article 243-Q and the applicability of natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Governor's discretion under Article 243-Q must adhere to specified parameters, and legislative actions must comply with constitutional mandates.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Order :

1. Learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate informs the Court that the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20142/2024 (Motan Das & Ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected cases, decided on 28.02.2025. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

“9. This Court also observes that for the purpose of this case, it is relevant to refer to Article 243-P(e) of the Constitution of India which defines the term “Municipality” to mean an institution of self-government constituted under Article 243-Q.

10. Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

243-Q. Constitution of Municipalities. -

(1) There shall be constituted in every State-

(a) Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural to an urban area;

(b) a Municipal Council for smaller urban area;and

(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part:

Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit by public notification, specify to be an industrial township.

In this article, “a transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” or “a larger urban area” means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part.”

11. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case of Champa Lal (supra), relevant portions of which are reproduced as follows:

“Article 243-Q contemplates the constitution of three different categories of bodies known as (1) Nagar Panchayat for transitional area (2) Municipal Council for a smaller urban areas, and (3) Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. It is declared under Article 243-Q(2) that the expressions “a transitional area”, “a smaller urban area” and a “larger urban area” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Areas”) would mean such areas as may be specified by the Governor by a public notification for the purpose of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India. Article 243-Q(2) further obligates the Governor to have due regard to the various factors mentioned therein before specifying the Areas i.e., the population of the area, the density of the population, the revenue generated in the area for local administration, percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit.

8. It, therefore, appears from the scheme of Article 243-Q(2) that the Governor is not free to notify “Areas” in his absolute discretion but is required to fix the parameters necessary to determine whether a particular AREA is transitional area or a smaller urban area or a larger urban area with due regard to the factors mentioned above. It is implicit that such parameters must be uniform for the entire State. It is only after the determination of the parameters, various municipal bodies contemplated under Article 243-Q(1) could be constituted.”

12. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Khetoliya (supra), wherein while explaining the scope of legislative power vis-a-vis Article 243-Q, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“16. Since the local Government falls in entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, therefore, it is the State Legislature alone which is competent to legislate in respect of the municipalities with only one limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top