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
(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
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 notic....
The court affirmed that the Governor's discretion in designating municipalities must adhere to specified constitutional parameters, and the provisions of the Act of 2009 prevail over those of the Act....
The notifications for municipal formation and alteration complied with constitutional mandates and statutory requirements, and the principles of natural justice were not violated.
The State Legislature alone is competent to legislate in respect of municipalities, with the limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of P....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Notifications issued under Section 5(1)(B) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 must fulfill the requirements of Article 243Q of the....
The court emphasized the discretion of the State Government to declare its intention to specify an area as a larger urban area, medium urban area, or transitional area, and the mandatory nature of th....
Gram panchayat - Recommendation of specification of village - Petitioner gram panchayats are not entitled to an opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that no effective consultation was made by re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.