Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9370
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dinesh Mehta, J
LAL CHAND ASOPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 4993 / 2025
Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Madan Beniwal Mr. C.S. Kotwani with Mr. Tushar Thanvi For Respondent(s):Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate-AAG assisted by Mr. Monal Chugh Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
The conversion of a Gram Panchayat to a Municipal Board results in the dissolution of the Panchayat and the removal of its members, including elected officials.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 101(2)(d) - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 - Section 3(1)(a) - Conversion of Gram Panchayat to Municipal Board - Petitioner removed from the post of Pradhan due to the declaration of Gram Panchayat, Napasar as a Municipal Board - Court held that the petitioner’s election as Pradhan was invalidated as the area ceased to be a Panchayati Raj Institution. (Paras 1, 4, 31, 44)
(B) Legal Status of Members - The court emphasized that once a Panchayat Circle ceases to be a rural area and becomes urban, the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act become inoperative, leading to the removal of members. (Paras 23, 32)
(C) Jurisdictional Authority - The court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board supersedes that of the Panchayat Samiti once the area is declared a Municipality. (Paras 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested and won elections for the post of Pradhan from Ward No.9 of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner. Following the declaration of Gram Panchayat, Napasar as a Municipal Board, the petitioner was removed from his position.
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the removal of the petitioner as the area had ceased to be a Panchayat area and was now under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner could continue as Pradhan after the conversion of the Gram Panchayat to a Municipality and the applicability of relevant statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conversion of the Gram Panchayat to a Municipality resulted in the dissolution of the Panchayat and the removal of its members, including the petitioner.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Judgment
Reportable 01/05/2025
1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure- 6), issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner, whereby the petitioner has been declared to have been removed from the post of Pradhan in light of the provisions contained in Section 101(2)(d) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’), the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Briefly narrated, the facts apropos the challenge laid are that the petitioner - a resident of village-Napasar contested the election for the post of member of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner from ward no.9.
3. After being declared winner from Ward No.9, he contested election for the post of Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti and was declared elected on 10.12.2020.
4. Before petitioner could complete his term of 5 years, a notification dated 07.11.2024 came to be issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009’) and Article 243Q of the Constitution of India, pursuant whereof, Gram Panchayat, Napasar was declared as Municipal Board.
5. Consequent upon declaration of Gram Panchayat, Napasar to be a Municipal Board, the respondent - State issued an order dated 28.11.2024 and declared that all the elected members from the Panchayati Raj Institutions of revenue village-Napasar shall be deemed to have been removed.
6. Following the order aforesaid, the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bikaner passed the order impugned and declared that the post of Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner has become vacant, as the petitioner had been removed as a member from Ward No.9 of said Panchayat Samiti.
7. Mr. Punia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was elected on the post of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner after having won from ward no.9 comprising of Village-Napasar and simply because Gram Panchayat, Napasar has been declared a Municipal Board, neither his membership from ward no.9 of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner can be interfered with nor can his post of Pradhan be declared vacant.
8. Learned senior counsel developed his argument by submitting that he had contested and won election for member of Panchayat Samiti from ward no.9, in his individual capacity and then was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti. He vehemently argued that simply because the Gram Panchayat, Napasar has been declared as Municipal Board, his right to continue as Pradhan does not cease.
9. He also argued that definition of ‘member’ as given in Section 2(1)(xiii) of the Act of 1994, defines that “a member means a member of Panchayati Raj Institution and includes a ‘Sarpanch’”.
10. His argument in other words has been that consequent to the declaration of Gram Panchayat as Municipality, status of members of said Gram Panchayat alone will be altered and not of other members, whose elections had no direct nexus or co- relation with such Gram Panchayat. It was emphasised that the petitioner had contested election from ward no.9 (Village-Napasar) of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner and not from Gram Panchayat, Napasar.
11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that Section 3(1) (iii) of the Act of 2009 saves the term and tenure of members of Gram Panchayat in case of delimitation or creation of Municipalities and therefore, petitioner’s tenure as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner is also saved. It was argued by Mr. Punia that it is arbitrary and unreasonable to declare that the petitioner has ceased to remain as a member and Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, when the members i.e. Sarpanch, Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Napasar have been allowed to continue and treated to be Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and members of Municipal Board, Napasar by way of notification dated 07.11.2024.
12. Learned senior counsel relied upon the interim order dated 07.02.2
