Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Ajay Rastogi and J.K. Ranka, JJ.
Bhupendra Pratap Singh Rathore & Ors. —Petitioner
versus
State of Raj.& Ors. —Respondents
D.B.C.W.P. No.12960/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13212/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.9169/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12164/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12324/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12462/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12760/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12763/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12770/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12829/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12872/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12879/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12890/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12901/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12909/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12926/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12928/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12929/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12940/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12945/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12946/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12955/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12994/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.12995/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13064/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13103/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13114/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13124/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13133/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13163/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13164/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13168/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13171/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13172/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13173/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13190/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13217/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13220/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13238/2014.
D.B.C.W.P. No.13273/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13288/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13294/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13308/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13330/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13331/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13332/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13343/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13344/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13355/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13358/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13360/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13374/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13415/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13424/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13429/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13435/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13440/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13447/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13450/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13467/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13474/2014 ; D.B.C.W.P. No.13495/2014 ; D.B.C.W.P. No.13511/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13512/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13513/2014 ; D.B.C.W.P. No.13514/2014 D.B.C.W.P. No.13527/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13532/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13554/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13561/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13626/2014 ; D.B.C.W.P. No.13657/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13658/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13659/2014 ; D.B.C.W.P. No.13673/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13703/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13712/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13719/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13720/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13722/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13726/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13740/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13753/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13763/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13770/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13771/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13783/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13786/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13840/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13875/201; D.B.C.W.P. No.13890/2014; D.B.C.W.P.No.13895/2014; D.B.C.W.P. No.13844/2014 and D.B.C.W.P.No.13931/2014
Decided on 18.12.2014

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr.R.P.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.S.K.Saini, Mr.Anoop Dhand, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.Rakesh Kala, Mr.Vijay Pathak, Mr.Hanuman Choudhary, Mr.Laxmikant, Mr.Achintya Kaushik, Mr.S.S.Hora, Mr.Swaraj Panwar, Mr.Vijay Sharma, Mr.Mahendra Sharma, Mr.R.A.Katta, Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodia, Mr.Deepak Asopa, Mr.Rajendra Soni, Mr.J.K.Yadav, Mr.Ajay Gupta, Mrs.Naina Saraf, Mr.Sanjay Verma, Mr.Naveen Dhuwan, Mr.V.S.Badhwar, Ms.Gayatari Rathore, Mr.I.R.Saini, Mr.S.S.Ola, Mr.P.K.Sharma, Mr.Lokendra Singh Shekhawat, Mr.Ravi Kumar Kasliwal, Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Mr.Sanjay Buri, Mr.Rajeev Sogarwal, Mr.C.M.Verma, Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Mr.Suresh Kumar Pareek, Mr.Arvind Bhardwaj, Mr.Madhav Mitra, Mr.S.K.Jain, Mr.P.C.Devanda, Mr.Anil Gupta, Mr.Gajendra Singh Rathore, Mr.Praveen Sharma, Mr.Manish Gupta, Mr.Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Mr.Karan Pal Singh, Mr.M.I.Khan, Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Mr.Ramavatar Bochlya, Mr.S.Khan, Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi, Mr.Amit Jindal, Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Mr.S.S.Shekhawat, Mr.S.K.Mahala, Mr.D.D.Khandelwal, Dr.M.S.Kachhawa, Mr.Vivek Choudhary, Mr.J.R.Tantia,
For the Respondents:Mr.Anurag Sharma, Addl.Advocate General for State. Mr. R.B.Mathur & Mr.R.P.Garg, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once notification of delimitation of constituencies has been published in official gazette u/S.101 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it got force of law and going by effect of Article 243-O(a), interference by courts in respect of delimitation of constituencies barred.

Headnote:Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 2(1)(ii) & (xvi), 9, 10 & 101 —Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, 243 to 243-O — Panchayat areas — Constitution, Reconstitution & Delimitation of — HELD — Prohibiting courts to entertain challenge in view of Article 243-C, K & O — Pertaining to constitution, reconstitution, delimitation of Panchayat areas under gazette notification cannot be entertained by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 27]
Result: All Petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT

Mr.Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant bunch of writ petitions involves a common issue and question of law, therefore, are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have primarily called in question constitution/reconstitution/delimitation of the respective Panchayat areas; formation of Panchayati Raj Institutions; change of headquarters of Gram Panchayats; and amalgamation & alteration of respective Panchayat areas on the ground that such action/steps have been taken in contravention of the guidelines issued by the State of Rajasthan, Department of Panchayati Raj and the circulars issued by the State Government u/S.101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 dt.11.07.2014 read with dt.21.07.2014 & dt.12.09.2014, have not been complied with in true spirit and after going through the procedure provided under the scheme of Act, 1994 and the process of constitution/reconstitution/delimitation of the Panchayati Raj Institutions being finalized by the State Government, the Notification issued u/S.101 of the Act, 1994 and published in the official gazette dt.05.11.2014 is constitutionally invalid and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the present purpose and for disposal of the instant bunch of writ petitions are that the process of delimitation lastly took place in the State of Rajasthan, as referred to by the respondents in their reply, way back in the year 1994 and thereafter, due to various reasons, delimitation of Panchayati Raj Institutions became inevitable and on account of increase in population, pursuant to publication of census figures i.e. Census-2011, it was decided by the State Government, Department of Panchayati Raj to undertake fresh delimitation exercise of the Panchayat areas by issuing a notification dt.02.06.2014 whereby District Collectors of the concerned Districts were delegated the powers to initiate process u/Ss.9, 10 & 101 of the Act, 1994 and pursuant thereto, vide circular dt.11.07.2014, the District Collectors were authorized for re-constituting/constituting Panchayat boundaries of the Panchayat Samitis and in continuation thereof a further clarification was issued clarifying the parameters/guidelines vide another circular dt.21.07.2014 and instructions were issued by the State Government to all the District Collectors to consider various inputs and published the draft of proposed changes with regard to constitution/re-constitution of Panchayati Raj Institutions inviting objections, if any, and proceeding upon the instructions and submit their recommendations to the State Government through Divisional Commissioner concerned. All the objections so received within the prescribed time period, as alleged, were considered and deliberated upon by the District Collectors and the matters were thereafter submitted to the State Government through Divisional Commissioner concerned and that were examined by the State Government through a committee of three Cabinet Ministers and after going through the recommendations, the process of delimitation was finalized by the State Government and the notification, as required u/S.101 of the Act, 1994, came to be published in the official gazette dt.05.11.2014.

4. In majority of writ petitions, the notification dt.05.11.2014, published in the Rajasthan Extra-Ordinary Gazette in exercise of powers conferred u/Ss.9, 10 & 101 of the Act, 1994 is a subject matter of challenge. However, in few writ petitions, the proceedings which are undertaken by the District Collectors prior thereto and after deliberation, recommendations sent by the District Collectors to the State Government through Divisional Commissioners is under challenge but the fact still remains that after the recommendations were sent by the District Collectors to the State Government through the Divisional Commissioners and after the matter being examined by the State Government through a committee of three Cabine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTOnce notification of delimitation of constituencies has been published in official gazette u/S.101 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it got force of law and going by effect of Article 243-O(a), interference by courts in respect of delimitation of constituencies barred.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IMPORTANT POINT
Once notification of delimitation of constituencies has been published in official gazette u/S.101 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, it got force of law and going by effect of Article 243-O(a), interference by courts in respect of delimitation of constituencies barred.