Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1883
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Mahaveer Prasad Gautam, S/o Shri Bhura Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2025 connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11269 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8076 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9779 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10610 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10846 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11390 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10316 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11049 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4189 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10309 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3157 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5047 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10822 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11703 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10406 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10995 of 2025
Decided On : 18-08-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Yashodhary Pandey, Mr.Mahindra Shandilya, Mr.Rahul Kamwar, Mr.Anurag Sharma with Mr.Akshat Sharma & Mr.Anoop Meena, Mr.Anshuman Saxena, Mr.Tanveer Ahamad, Mr.Laxmi Kant Malpura, Ms.Naina Saraf, Mr.Jiya Ur Rahman, Mr.Pradeep Sharma, Mr.Laxmi narayan Saini, Mr.Martand Pratap Singh, Mr.Amit Jindal with Ms.Neetu Bhansali, Mr.Shiv Lal Meena, Mr.Vikas Kumar Jakhar, Mr.Devendra Choudhary, Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg.
For the Respondents: Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr.Ashutosh Udawat, Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Mr.Sumit Purohit, Mr.Prateek Saxena, Mr.Abhishek Bhardwaj.
Administrative removals from office under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act necessitate adherence to principles of natural justice, mandating the opportunity for a hearing before any punitive action.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 243-B and 243-E - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 17, 38, 95, and 98 - Removal of Administrators from posts without a hearing - Orders impugned challenged for lack of due process; petitioners removed without an opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice principles. (Paras 8, 28, 40, 41)
(B) Natural justice - Requirement of a pre-decisional hearing - The court emphasized that failure to provide a fair opportunity undermines the integrity of administrative actions. (Paras 27, 38)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, who served as Administrators post-tenure as Sarpanchs, were removed without affording them a hearing, leading to petitions challenging the validity of removal processes.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the removal orders did not comply with the natural justice requirements, quashing them and allowing the State to initiate proceedings following due process.
Issues: Whether removal from office of the Administrators without a hearing is legally permissible under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court identified that administrative removals require adherence to principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, stating that pre-decisional hearings are mandated to ensure fairness.
Result: Impugned removal orders quashed; respondents directed to proceed according to law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. significance of panchayati raj institutions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioners contest removal without due process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. respondents argue postponement justified. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. constitutional provisions regarding panchayati raj. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. legal framework for removal from office. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. principles of natural justice violated. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. court quashes removal orders. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. elections must be timely to ensure democracy. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-
| INDEX | |
| (1) | Preface |
| (2) | Factual Matrix |
| (3) | Contentions of the petitioners |
| (4) | Contention of the respondents |
| (5) | Analysis, Discussions & Findings |
| (6) | Conclusion & Directions |
| (7) | Parting Remarks |
Preface
1. The voice of the people is the voice of God. The latin phrase “vox populi, vox Dei” has been used throughout history from time immemorial to suggest that the will of the people is divinely inspired.
2. Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi said “Panchayati Raj Institution references true democracy.” He believed that a decentralized system of governance, where village communities govern themselves, would be more effective way to achieve true democracy in India.
3. Gandhi’s ideas on Panchayati Raj were rooted in his belief that true democracy should not be confined to the National or State levels, but should extend to the grass root levels, ensuring the participation of all citizens in the decision making process. He saw Panchayats as building blocks of a strong and vibrant democracy, where local needs and aspirations could be addressed directly by the people themselves.
4. Gram Panchayat is the basic governing institution, at the village level, in Indian villages. It is a political institution, akin to the cabinet of a village or a group of villages. Member of the Gram Panchayat are directly elected by the local people and the Gram Panchayat is headed by an elected Sarpanch, who serves as the administrative head of the Panchayat. There are approximately 2,50,000 Gram Panchayats across India. As per the available statistics till March, 2021, Rajasthan alone had 11,341 Gram Panchayats.
5. Gram Panchayat plays a vital role in ensuring local governance and to address the needs and concerns of even the most remote areas. The idea of establishment of Panchayat Raj came into force vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India. These Panchayats enable the rural residents to actively participate in governance and ensure that the voices of the marginalized and needy are heard.
6. As per the provisions contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, the tenure of a Panchayat is five years, which can be extended for a maximum period of six months thereafter.
7. In a democratic setup, an elected representative, such as members of the Panchayati Raj Institutions, serve as the voice of the people they represent. Therefore, removing them from their post, requires careful consideration and due process.
8. Under the rule of law, an elected representative is entitled to hold office for the term unless it is proven that his conduct is disgraceful or that he has misused his power and position. Such an elected representative can certainly be suspended and removed from their post, after following the procedure contained under the provisions of Section 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Whether such representatives can be removed from their post without being given an opportunity to be heard or not is the precise issue, which is required to be decided by this Court in the instant batch of writ petitions.
Factual Matrix:
8. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard together and all these wri
