[2025:RJ-JD:52562-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1128/2025 Lal Chand Asopa S/o Mahadev, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Napasar, District Bikaner, At Present Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Bikaner, District Bikaner.

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director And Special Secretary Local Self Department.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, District Bikaner.

----Respondents For Appellant : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra Dr. Pramila Acharya For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate &

AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

05/12/2025

1. Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. Both the counsels are ad idem that the issue raised in the present appeal stands covered by the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed by this Court in Sheela Kumari Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2025]. Relevant paragraphs reads as under:-

“181. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant statutory provisions, this Court finds that the contention raised by the petitioners lacks merit. The petitioners’ argument that the office of Pradhan continues for a full term despite the ward or area from which he was originally elected being transferred from the Panchayat Samiti to a Municipality, is untenable.

185. The authoritative decision in Lal Chand Asopa v. State of Rajasthan confirms that upon such territorial reorganization, the office of Pradhan held by a member elected from the affected area stands terminated, precluding any continuation on the basis that the Pradhan represents the entire Panchayat Samiti. Thus, the petitioners cannot continue to hold the office, once the ward has ceased to be part of the Panchayat Samiti and the petitioners’ contention to the contrary is accordingly rejected. The relevant portion of the judgment in Lal Chand Asopa (supra) is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:

“36. Upshot of publication of notification dated 07.11.2024 is, that the entire block of Gram Panchayat, Napasar stood excluded from Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner. There is no dispute about the fact that the Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner used to comprise of 21 wards, out of which ward nos.9 and 10 were from Gram Panchayat, Napasar. Since revenue area of Napasar itself has ceased to remain a revenue area or panchayat area and has become an urban area and declared as a Municipality, these wards (ward nos.9 and 10) have ceased to exist by operation of law.

37. Since the entire area of Gram Panchayat, Napasar has ceased to remain as panchayat area and converted to municipal area, Section 101(2)(d) of the Act of 1994 comes into play which correspond to clause(d) of sub- section(1) of Section 101 of the Act of 1994. A simple reading of such provision suggests that in such eventuality, the Panchayat shall stand dissolved and the members, who represent the local area excluded from the Panchayat Circle shall stand removed.

38. The provision contained in Section 101(2)

(d) not only deals with the members of a Gram Panchayat but also provides that the members who represent the local area excluded from Panchayat Circle shall stand removed. Hence, the petitioner who was elected from Ward No.9 so also other member, namely Kishan who was elected from Ward No.10 of such Panchayat Samiti (representing Napasar - excluded from Panchayat Circle) have to be given adieu, as a fallout of issuance of the impugned notification(s)/orders.

42. This Court also does not find any substance in petitioner’s contention based on clause (c) of sub- section(8) of Section 3 of the Act of 2009 that his term should also b