Rajasthan HC Upholds Municipal Delimitation Notifications: S.3 of Municipalities Act 2009 Overrides Panchayati Raj Act Notice Mandate - 2025-05-10

Rajasthan High Court Upholds State's Power in Municipal Delimitation, Cites Overriding Effect of Municipalities Act

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging notifications issued by the State Government for the creation and alteration of municipal boundaries across various districts. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman , held that the impugned notifications were in compliance with Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (Act of 2009).

The judgment, pronounced on February 28, 2025, clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 3 of the Act of 2009 gives it an overriding effect over the procedural requirements, including the one-month public notice, stipulated under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act , 1994 (Act of 1994).

Case Overview

The Court was adjudicating a batch of eight civil writ petitions, including D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20142/2024, challenging various notifications that led to the formation of new municipalities (e.g., Gharsana, Balesar, Ramdevra, Goluwala) or the inclusion of Gram Panchayat areas into existing municipal councils (e.g., Barmer). Petitioners, including residents and Gram Panchayats, argued that these notifications were arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of natural justice, and failed to adhere to the parameters set by Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution and procedural mandates.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Contentions: The primary arguments raised by the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Balia and others, were:

* Violation of Constitutional Mandate: The notifications allegedly disregarded parameters under Article 243-Q(2) (population, density, revenue, non-agricultural employment, economic importance) for declaring transitional areas.

* Non-compliance with Panchayati Raj Act : Failure to issue a one-month public notice and invite objections as required by Section 101 of the Act of 1994 before altering Panchayat limits.

* Breach of Natural Justice: Lack of public participation and opportunity for hearing (audi alteram partem) before such significant administrative changes affecting livelihoods and rural benefits.

* Arbitrariness: Decisions were often based solely on population criteria or budget proposals without due diligence. * Reliance was placed on precedents like Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh .

Respondents' Submissions: The State of Rajasthan, represented by Senior Advocate & AAG Mr. Rajesh Panwar and others, countered that:

* Legislative Competence: The State Government is competent under Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to legislate on municipalities, and the Act of 2009 is consistent with Part IX-A of the Constitution.

* Overriding Effect of Municipalities Act: Section 3(10) of the Act of 2009, containing a non-obstante clause, prevails over any conflicting provisions in the Act of 1994, including Section 101.

* No Mandatory Prior Notice under Section 3: Section 3 of the Act of 2009 does not require prior public notice for declaring an area a municipality.

* Legislative Character of Power: The declaration under Section 3 is legislative in nature, thus the audi alteram partem rule is not applicable by necessary implication, as held in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya .

* Precedent on Non-Obstante Clauses: Citing Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators Private Limited , it was argued that a later enactment's non-obstante clause prevails.

Court's Reasoning and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed the constitutional and statutory provisions.

On Article 243-Q of the Constitution: The Court observed that Article 243-Q(2) vests discretionary power in the Governor to determine factors for constituting a municipality. It stated: > "This Court observes that discretionary power has been vested in the Hon’ble Governor under Article 243-Q(2) of the Constitution of India and a bare perusal of the same, highlights that, it does not mandate issuance of any notification merely on count of ample discretion having been conferred... Thus, the impugned notifications are in compliance of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India." (Para 13)

The Court distinguished the Champa Lal case, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Khetoliya , which in turn relied on the three-Judge Bench judgment in Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. : > "...the power of the State to legislate within its legislative competence is plenary and the same cannot be curtailed in the absence of an express limitation placed on such power in the Constitution itself.” (Quoted in Para 14, from Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh )

On the Conflict of Non-Obstante Clauses: Addressing the core contention regarding the applicability of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 versus Section 3 of the Act of 2009, the Court found that the latter would prevail: > "This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994." (Para 17.2) > > "This Court therefore observes that, in such a scenario Section 3 of the Act of 2009 would prevail over Section 101 of the Act of 1994, and in such a case, the requirement of one month notice as enshrined under Section 101 is not necessary to be complied with." (Para 17.3)

On Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem): The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Ashok Khetoliya that the power to declare a municipality is legislative in character, and thus, the audi alteram partem rule does not automatically apply: > "This Court in light of the aforementioned, observes that in the instant case the maxim “audi alteram partem” in absence of any express provision, is not applicable merely by necessary implication and therefore, the impugned notifications do not suffer from any illegality on that count as well." (Para 19)

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the impugned notifications were issued in accordance with Article 243-Q of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, without any deviation from the principles of natural justice that would warrant interference.

> "This Court observes that the notifications impugned in the present writ petitions were issued in accordance with Article 243- Q of the Constitution of India & Section 3 of the Act of 2009 and without any deviation from the principles of natural justice. Resultantly, the impugned notifications do not suffer from any illegality, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the present adjudicatory pursuit." (Para 20)

Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. This judgment reinforces the State's authority in matters of municipal delimitation under the framework of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, particularly emphasizing the overriding nature of its provisions when faced with procedural requirements of earlier statutes like the Panchayati Raj Act , 1994.