Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hitesh Tiwari vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10298/2025
1. Hitesh Tiwari S/o Makhan Lal Tiwari, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Sadbhavna Nagar, 3-A Chhoti,
Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
2. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Shri Sukhpreet Singh, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of House No. 1-T-43, Ward No. 23,
Sadbhavna Nagar, 3-A Chhoti, Sahuwala, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
3. Ravi S/o Shri Subhash, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of
3-A Chhoti, Sadbhavna Nagar, 3-F, Sahuwala, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
4. Dharmveer S/o Shri Jaykishan, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of 3-A Chhoti, Sadbhavna Nagar, 3-F, Sahuwala,
District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
5. Neeraj Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged About
44 Years, Resident Of 1-S-19, Gali No. 04, Near Durga
Mandit, Sadbhavna Nagar-A, Sahuwala, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Ved Prakash, Aged About 53
Years, Resident Of House No. 1-N-11, Sadbhavna Nagar,
3-A Chhoti, Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
7. Mahender Kumar Mahiya S/o Shri Hetram Mahiya, Aged
About 44 Years, Resident Of B-67, Gokuldham, Chak 3-A
Chhoti, Near Sadbhavna Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
8. Prem Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of House No. 45, Gali No. 2, Chak 3-E-Chhoti,
District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
9. Pankesh S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of 1-I-2, Sadbhavna Nagar, Chak 3-A Chhoti,
Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
10. Kamalkant S/o Shri Khemchand, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of House No. 1-R-10, Chak 3-A Chhoti,
Sadbhavna Nagar, Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM)
(Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-10298/2025]
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Nagar Vikas Nyas, Sri Ganganagar Through Its
Secretary (Rajasthan).
3. The Nagar Parishad, Sri Ganganagar Through Its
Commissioner (Rajasthan).
4. The Gram Panchayat, Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar
Through Its Sarpanch (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Gehlot
Mr. Pawan Bharti for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 06/04/2026
1. The issue raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the village Chak 3-A Chhoti, Gram Panchayat Sahuwala, District Sri Ganganagar, which was included as part of Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar and it was falling under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Sahuwala but now has been excluded from Municipal limits of Sri Ganganagar vide notification dated 27/03/2025. The de-notification is challenged on the ground that no reasons have come forward for the de-notification and merely mentioning of administrative reasons would not be sufficient ground to de-notifiy from the Municipal limits. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and already stands adjudicated by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Sheela Kumari vs. State of (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-10298/2025] Rajasthan & Ors.1 along with other connected matters wherein it has been held as under:
"145. After analysing the said contention and giving thoughtful consideration to the provisions of the PESA Act, it is clear that the participation of the Gram Sabha is mandated only for the functions as prescribed under Section 4 of the PESA Act, which deals with the resettlement, rehabilitation or development of the TSP area. In absence of any specific statutory requirement prescribed under the Constitution of India or the PESA Act, it cannot be held that the prior consultation of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of delimitation, TSP Area is mandatory. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners in Bhanwar Lal Mundra (supra) and other judgments are not related to the issue so raised, therefore, the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Hence, the challenge given by the petitioners to the delimitation notifications on such grounds fails.
146. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the final notifications on the ground that on earlier occasion, some part of the Panchayat area has been included, whereas, while issuing the notifications impugned, the said notifications were withdrawn or the rural area is again excluded from the Municipality. Counsels for the petitioners contended that said exercise clearly shows arbitrary exercise of the powers by the State authorities and the same cannot be allowed to be sustained.
147. Learned Advocate General while responding to the said challenge, has reiterated the submission regarding scope of interference of this Court in such matters. It is contended that once the State Government after thoughtful consideration of, overall factors has taken a conscious decision, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon a recent judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Panwar (supra). The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:
"3. According to the petitioners, the Sub-divisional Officer at Raniwada started the process for creating 20 wards in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat Raniwada and for that purpose a notice inviting objection was published on 27th March 2025. The petitioners have produced on record the copies of notifications pertaining to Gram Panchayats Jhakhal and Dundlod both dated 02nd September 2024 to demonstrate that similar exercises were undertaken in other Gram Panchayats. However, the said process was 1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025, decided on 14.11.2025 (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-10298/2025] abruptly halted because the Government Notification dated 26th March 2025 came to be issued and thereby the previous Notification dated 20th May 2022 was withdrawn. Criticizing the Government action in withdrawing the Notification dated 20th May 2022, the petitioners have pleaded that the Gram Panchayat Jhakhal and Gram Panchayat Dundlod are left untouched whereas a decision in respect of the Gram Panchayat Raniwada has been taken in the most arbitrary manner to reverse the declaration made under the Government Notification dated 20th May 2022 that the said Gram Panchayat shall constitute a Municipal Council.
5. Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that creation of a Nagar Panchayat or a Municipal Councilor a Municipal Corporation is not a 2-way process inasmuch as once a decision is taken to create a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area or a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, the said decision cannot be reversed and the newly constituted Nagar Panchayat has to be restored to its original position.
10. The impugned Notification clearly mentions that the same has been issued under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan. The Notification dated 20th May 2022 was also issued under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act provides that a power to make rules includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add, to amend, to vary or rescind any rules so made. In "Rasid Javed & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr." (2010) 7 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authority which has power to issue a notification has undoubted power to rescind or modify it in the like manner. In paragraph no. (1) of the reported judgment in "Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited& Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors." (2011) 3 SCC 193, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "41. By virtue of Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, when a power is conferred on an authority to do a particular act, such power can be exercised from time to time and carries with it the power to withdraw, modify, amend or cancel the notifications earlier issued, to be exercised in the like manner and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exercise (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-10298/2025] of the power. It would be too narrow a view to accept that chargeability once fixed cannot be altered. Since the charging provision in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is subject to the State Government's power to issue notification under Section 49 of the Act granting rebate, the State Government, in view of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, can always withdraw, rescind, add to or modify an exemption notification. No industry can claim as of right that the Government should exercise its power under Section 49 and offer rebate and it is for the Government to decide whether the conditions are such that rebate should be granted or not.
11. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8177 of 2025 is dismissed."
In view of the judgment cited above, the said ground of challenge is also not sustainable.
148. The conclusion emerges from the discussions made above, can be summed up as under :-
i) The power of the Government in issuing delimitation notifications is in the nature of conditional legislation.
ii) The scope of interference by the Constitutional Court in the matters of delimitation is limited to the scope of judicial review and the same can only be exercised in rarest of rare cases on establishment of proof of manifest arbitrariness or the decision being irreconcilable to the Constitutional values.
iii) The guidelines issued along with the notices for delimitation are not statutory in nature and thus, are not enforceable in law.
iv) The final delimitation notifications once issued, cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of non-adherence of the guidelines relating to population / distance criteria alone, where the decision has been taken after holistic consideration of various factors as per the constitutional scheme.
v) The writ petitions challenging the delimitation notifications cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners.
vi) The authorities considering the objections / suggestions received in pursuance of the notices of delimitation, are not required to act as a judicial / quasi-judicial authority to decide each objections with reasoned order.
vii) The principle of audi alteram partem is not applicable in the cases of delimitation.
viii) In view of the discussions made above, with regard to different grounds raised by the petitioners in different writ petitions, as adjudicated above, no case for interference in the present bunch of writ petitions challenging the final notifications of delimitation issued under Section 3 of the Act (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15537-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-10298/2025] of 2009 or under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, is made out."
2. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is dismissed mutatis mutandis.
3. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 56-harish/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:26:45 AM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:45:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)