Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Barfi Devi W/O Shri Roop Ram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 September, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (1 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11107/2025
Smt. Urmila Agarwal W/o Shri Nirmal Agarwal, aged about
56 years, R/o Ward No. 20, Pansariyon Ka Mohalla, Paota,
Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C- Scheme, Jaipur
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2025
Santosh Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Prahlad Agarwal, aged about
60 years, R/o Ward No. 16, Naredi Mohalla, Ajeetgarh,
Amarsar, Sikar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6840/2025
Neeta Devi W/o Shri Sajjan Kumar Mishra, aged about 62
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (2 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
years, R/o Bansur District Alwar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, Government of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1875/2025
Himmat Singh S/o Shri Moolchand Choudhary, aged about
44 years, R/o Laxmangarh Road, Malakheda, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1876/2025
Hemlata Sharma W/o Shri Vinit Sharma, aged about 44
years, R/o Ward No. 20, Kudo Ka Mohalla, Sultanpura, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (3 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2468/2025
Smt. Barfi Devi W/o Shri Roop Ram Meena, aged about 35
Years, Resident of Sapotara Mode, Sapotara District Karauli
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self, Government of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2489/2025
Smt. Chandrakala W/o Shri Ramdeen, aged about 34 years,
resident of Gandhi Tiraha, Chhahar Basedi, Basedi, District
Dholpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Department of Local Self Bodies, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department of Local Self Bodies,
Directorate, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. The District Collector Dholpur, District Dholpur.
5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Basedi District
Dholpur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (4 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3529/2025
Harphool Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, aged about 48 years,
R/o Village Kanwarpura Balaji, Dundlod, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11111/2025
Urmila Devi W/o Shri Ajay Methi, aged about 54 Years, R/o
in front of Tehsil, VPO Govindgarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11123/2025
Pooja Garg W/o Shri Jitin Garg, aged about 33 years, R/o 1,
Main Market, Near Masjid, Tapukara, District Khairthal-Tijara.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (5 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Local Self Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of Local
Self Government, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Road,
Near Civil Line Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma with
Ms. Kamini Pareek,
Mr. Jitendra Choudhary &
Mr. Sarthak Choubey
Mr. N.C. Sharma
Mr. G.S. Gouttam
Mr. Dhanraj Bhaskar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. General
assisted by Ms. Harshita Thakral &
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
Reserved on 16/09/2025
Pronounced on 20/09/2025
Reportable
For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided
in the following parts: -
INDEX
(1) Prelude.....................................................................6
(2) Factual Matrix & Prayer............................................7
(3) Contentions of the petitioners..................................7
(4) Contentions of the respondents...............................9
(5) Discussions, Analysis & Findings...........................11
(6) Conclusion..............................................................46
(7) Concluding Remarks...............................................46
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (6 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Prelude:
Municipalities in urban areas of India are established to
provide local self-governance, evolving from the British-era
corporation in the 17th and 18th Century to the constitutional
recognition. Municipalities are also known as Urban Local
Bodies (ULBs) and they play a crucial role in the governance
and administration of cities and towns across the country.
They are local self-government institutions responsible for
managing urban centers, including cities and towns.
Empowered by the State Governments, ULBs are responsible
for a wide range of functions that directly affect the urban
population and populace, including urban planning,
infrastructure development, waste management, public health
and other essential civic services.
The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 laid the
foundation stone for decentralized urban governance in India
by providing a constitutional framework for ULBs. ULBs are
tasked with delivering a wide range of public services
effectively and efficiently. Their core responsibilities include
urban planning, public services, ensuring adequate water
supply and sanitation, infrastructure development and
formulating & implementing strategies for socio-economic
growth of urban areas. ULBs also regulate land development
and construction across the municipal boundaries. They
function at the grass-root level to implement various Central
and State Government Policies & initiatives such as the
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Smart Cities Mission, etc.
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (7 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
ULBs are essential components of India's urban
governance system, playing a crucial role in managing the
complexities of urban areas' administration. Effective urban
governance is a key to achieve sustainable development and
to improve the quality of life in Indian cities, towns & urban
areas making ULBs a critical institute for future policy making.
Factual Matrix & Prayer:
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in
all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for
the parties, the matters are taken up and heard together for
final disposal and are being decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer quoted
in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1727/2025 is taken into
consideration. The instant writ petition has been preferred
with the following prayer:
"a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in
the nature thereof thereby the Notification dated
22.1.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside
and the respondents may kindly be directed to
extend the term of Nagar Palika till holding of
election afresh as extended in the case of Gram
Panchayat vide Notification dated 16.1.2025.
b) By an appropriate writ order and direction the
respondents may kindly be directed to allow the
petitioner to complete term of five years of office
of chairman from the date of first meeting.
c) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of
the Petitioner."
Contentions of the petitioners:
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners were elected as Sarpanch of their
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (8 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
respective Gram Panchayats in the month of January, 2020.
During continuation of the petitioners on the post of
Sarpanch, the Department of Local Self Bodies issued a
notification dated 01.06.2021, whereby the Government of
Rajasthan took a decision to merge certain Gram Panchayats
into Municipal Boards/Municipal Councils and as part of this
decision, an arrangement was made allowing the elected
Sarpanch, Vice-Sarpanch or Member of Panchayati Raj to
continue on the post of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or
Member of the Municipal Board/Municipal Council. Counsel
further submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid notification,
all the petitioners were permitted to continue as Chairperson.
However, all of a sudden, vide notification dated 22.01.2025,
the petitioners were removed from their respective post of
Sarpanch by the respondents on the pretext that their five-
year tenure has completed. Counsel submits that in several
other Gram Panchayats, where the five-year tenure of
Sarpanch has completed, their Sarpanchs have been
nominated/appointed as Administrators to continue
discharging the functions of their respective Panchayats.
Therefore, it is argued that a discriminatory approach has
been adopted by the respondents in the case of the
petitioners. Counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that till
date no fresh elections for either the Panchayats or the
Municipal Bodies have been conducted by the respondents.
Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioners are
entitled to continue as Chairpersons of their respective
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (9 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Municipal Bodies in accordance with Sections 7 and 322 of the
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act of
2009') and Article 243-U of the Constitution of India. Counsel
submits that the notification dated 22.01.2025 is arbitrary and
discriminatory, as it creates discrimination between two
similarly situated persons. In the case of the present
petitioners, they have been discontinued and removed from
the post of Chairperson of their respective Municipal Bodies,
on completion of five-year tenure, whereas in the case of the
other Gram Panchayats wherein the term of the respective
Panchayats have also been completed, the similarly situated
persons, who too were elected as Sarpanch, have been
allowed to continue as Administrator of their respective Gram
Panchayats. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.
Contentions of the respondents:
4. Per contra, learned Advocate General, appearing on
behalf of the State opposed the arguments advanced by
counsel for the petitioners and submitted that by way of filing
these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a writ of
mandamus with the prayer to issue directions to the
respondents to continue them in the office of Chairperson,
Vice-Chairperson. Counsel submits that a writ of mandamus
can only be issued where a legal right has been violated or a
legal injury has been caused. Unless and until the petitioners
are able to establish any legal right in their favour, they
cannot be permitted to approach this Court invoking its writ
jurisdiction for the aforesaid directions. In support of his
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (10 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465. He further submitted that the
Panchayati Raj Institutions and the Municipal Bodies are two
distinct institutions & entities and the duties and functions of
these institutions are altogether different. While the
Panchayati Raj Institutions operate as per Eleventh Schedule
attached to Article 243-G of the Constitution of India, the
Municipal Bodies function as per Twelfth Schedule attached to
Article 243-W of the Constitution of India. Counsel pointed out
that in the State of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Institutions are
thousands in number as compared to the Municipal Bodies,
which are hardly hundreds in number. Counsel further
submitted that the mechanisms governing these two
institutions are also different. Under the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994') and the Act of
2009, the provisions dealing with dissolution are distinct. In
the event of dissolution of a Panchayati Raj Institution, the
charge can be given to any person as per the discretion of the
State Government. However, in the case of dissolution of a
Municipal body, the charge can be given to any "officer" in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009. Counsel
submits that the petitioners cannot be allowed to make out a
case of discrimination, as their case does not fall within the
ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel
submits that there is a reasonable classification and the
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (11 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
petitioners have failed to satisfy the twin conditions of
reasonable classification to establish a violation of Article 14
of the Constitution i.e. intelligible differentia and nexus to the
object sought to be achieved. Counsel submits that the
petitioners have failed to demonstrate a single instance that
after dissolution of any Municipal body, any individual has
been permitted to continue in the capacity of an Administrator
giving reference of Sections 3, 6, 9 & 10 and Sections 320
and 322 of the Act of 2009. Counsel submits that the
notification dated 22.01.2025 has been rightly issued.
Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioners are not
entitled to get any relief, as sought in the instant writ petition.
In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the
case of Guddi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others while
deciding D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2002/2020. Counsel
submits that in view of the submissions made herein above,
all the writ petitions are liable to be rejected, as these writ
petitions are highly misconceived.
5. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioners has opposed the
arguments raised by counsel for the State.
Discussions, Analysis & Findings:
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and
perused the material available on the record.
7. Part-IX of the Constitution of India deals with
Constitution, Composition and Duration of the Panchayats,
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (12 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
whereas Part-IX-A of the Constitution pertains to the
Constitution, Composition and Duration of the Municipalities.
Likewise, Chapter-III of the Act of 1994, deals with
establishment, composition and duration of the Panchayati Raj
Institution and Chapter-IV of the Act deals with the power of
the Government to dissolve the Panchayati Raj Institution and
consequences of such dissolution. At the same time Chapter-
II of the Act of 2009 contains the provisions of establishment,
composition and duration of the Municipality and Chapter-XIV
of this Act deals with controlling power of the State to dissolve
the Municipality.
8. The relevant provisions of Constitution, Composition and
Duration of the Panchayati Raj and the Municipality, under
Part-IX and IX-A of the Indian Constitution and reproduced as
under in comparative form:
Art. Panchayats Art. Municipalities
243B Constitution of 243Q Constitution of
Panchayats Municipalites-
(1) There shall be (1) There shall be
constituted in every constituted in every
State, Panchayats at State,--
the village, intermediate (a) a Nagar Panchayat
and district levels in (by whatever name
accordance with the called) for a transitional
provision of this Part. area, that is to say, an
(2) Notwithstanding area in transition from a
anything in clause (1), rural area to an urban
Panchayats at the area;
intermediate level may (b) a Municipal Council
not be constituted in a for a smaller urban
State having a area; and
population not (c) a Municipal
exceeding twenty lakhs. Corporation for a larger
urban area, in
accordance with the
provisions of this Part:
Provided that a
Municipality under this
clause may not be
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (13 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Art. Panchayats Art.
Municipalities
constituted in such
urban area or part
thereof as the Governor
may, having regard to
the size of the area and
the municipal services
being provided or
proposed to be
provided by an
industrial establishment
in that area and such
other factors as he may
deem fit, by public
notification, specify to
be an industrial
township.
(2) In this article, "a
transitional area", "a
smaller urban area" or
"a larger urban area"
means such area as the
Governor may, having
regard to the population
of the area, the density
of the population
therein, the revenue
generated for local
administration, the
percentage of
employment in non-
agricultural activities,
the economic
importance or such
other factors as he may
deem fit, specify by
public notification for
the purposes of this
Part.
243C Composition of 243R Composition of
Panchayats Municipalities-
(1) Subject to the (1) Save as provided in
provisions of this Part, clause (2), all the seats
the Legislature of a in a Municipality shall
State may, by law, be filled by persons
make provisions with chosen by direct
respect to the election from the
composition of territorial constituencies
Panchayats: in the Municipal area
Provided that the ratio and for this purpose
between the population each Municipal area
of the territorial area of shall be divided into
a Panchayat at any level territorial constituencies
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (14 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Art. Panchayats Art. Municipalities
and the number of to be known as wards.
seats in such Panchayat (2) The Legislature of a
to be filled by election State may, by law,
shall, so far as provide--
practicable, be the (a) for the
same throughout the representation in a
State. Municipality of--
(2) All the seats in a (i) persons having
Panchayat shall be filled special knowledge or
by persons chosen by experience in Municipal
direct election from administration;
territorial constituencies (ii) the members of the
in the Panchayat area House of the People and
and, for this purpose, the members of the
each Panchayat area Legislative Assembly of
shall be divided into the State representing
territorial constituencies constituencies which
in such manner that the comprise wholly or
ratio between the partly the Municipal
population of each area;
constituency and the (iii) the members of the
number of seats allotted Council of States and
to it shall, so far as the members of the
practicable, be the Legislative Council of
same throughout the the State registered as
Panchayat area. electors within the
(3) The Legislature of a Municipal area;
State may, by law, (iv) the Chairpersons of
provide for the the Committees
representation-- constituted under
(a) of the Chairpersons clause (5) of article
of the Panchayats at the 243S:
village level, in the Provided that the
Panchayats at the persons referred to in
intermediate level or, in paragraph (i) shall not
the case of a State not have the right to vote in
having Panchayats at the meetings of the
the intermediate level, Municipality; (b) the
in the Panchayats at the manner of election of
district level; the Chairperson of a
(b) of the Chairpersons Municipality.
of the Panchayats at the
intermediate level, in
the Panchayats at the
district level;
(c) of the members of
the House of the People
and the members of the
Legislative Assembly of
the State representing
constituencies which
comprise wholly or
partly a Panchayat area
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:37666] (15 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
Art. Panchayats Art. Municipalities
at a level other than the
village level, in such
Panchayat;
(d) of the members of
the Council of States
and the members of the
Legislative Council of
the State, where they
are registered as
electors within--
(i) a Panchayat area at
the intermediate level,
in Panchayat at the
intermediate level;
(ii) a Panchayat area at
the district level, in
Panchayat at the district
level.
(4) The Chairperson of
a Panchayat and other
members of a
Panchayat whether or
not chosen by direct
election from territorial
constituencies in the
Panchayat area shall
have the right to vote in
the meetings of the
Panchayats.
(5) The Chairperson of
--
(a) a panchayat at the village level shall be elected in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide; and
(b) a Panchayat at the intermediate level or district level shall be elected by, and from amongst, the elected members thereof.
243E Duration of 243U Duration of Panchayats, etc. Municipalites, etc.- (1) Every Panchayat, (1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved unless sooner dissolved under any law for the under any law for the time being in force, time being in force, shall continue for five shall continue for five years from the date years from the date appointed for its first appointed for its first (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (16 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Art. Panchayats Art. Municipalities meeting and no longer. meeting and no longer:
(2) No amendment of Provided that a any law for the time Municipality shall be being in force shall have given a reasonable the effect of causing opportunity of being dissolution of a heard before its Panchayat at any level, dissolution.
which is functioning (2) No amendment of immediately before any law for the time such amendment, till being in force shall the expiration of its have the effect of duration specified in causing dissolution of a clause (1). Municipality at any (3) An election to level, which is constitute a Panchayat functioning immediately shall be completed- before such
(a) before the expiry of amendment, till the its duration specified in expiration of its clause (1); duration specified in
(b) before the clause (1).
expiration of a period of (3) An election to six months from the constitute a Municipality date of its dissolution: shall be completed,-- Provided that where the (a) before the expiry of remainder of the period its duration specified in for which the dissolved clause (1);
Panchayat would have (b) before the continued is less than expiration of a period of six months, it shall not six months from the be necessary to hold date of its dissolution:
any election under this Provided that where the clause for constituting remainder of the period the Panchayat for such for which the dissolved period. Municipality would have (4) A Panchayat continued is less than constituted upon the six months, it shall not dissolution of a be necessary to hold Panchayat before the any election under this expiration of its clause for constituting duration shall continue the Municipality for only for the remainder such period.
of the period for which (4) A Municipality the dissolved Panchayat constituted upon the would have continued dissolution of a under clause (1) had it Municipality before the not been so dissolved. expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (17 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Art. Panchayats Art.
Municipalities dissolved.
243K Elections to the 243ZA Election to the
Panchayats Municipalites-
(1) The (1) The
superintendence, superintendence,
direction and control of direction and control of
the preparation of the preparation of
electoral rolls for, and electoral rolls for, and
the conduct of, all the conduct of, all
elections to the elections to the
Panchayats shall be Municipalities shall be
vested in a State vested in the State
Election Commission Election Commission
consisting of a State referred to in article
Election Commissioner 243K.
to be appointed by the (2) Subject to
Governor. provisions of this
(2) Subject to the Constitution, the
provisions of any law Legislature of a State
made by the Legislature may, by law, make
of a State, the provision with respect
conditions of service to all matters relating
and tenure of office of to, or in connection
the State Election with, elections to the
Commissioner shall be Municipalities.
such as the Governor
may by rule determine:
Provided that the State
Election Commissioner
shall not be removed
from his office except in
like manner and on the
like grounds as a Judge
of a High Court and the
conditions of service of
the State Election
Commissioner shall not
be varied to his
disadvantage after his
appointment.
(3) The Governor of a
State shall, when so
requested by the State
Election Commission,
make available to the
State Election
Commission such staff
as may be necessary for
the discharge of the
functions conferred on
the State Election
Commission by clause
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (18 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Art. Panchayats Art. Municipalities (1).
(4) Subject to the
provisions of this
Constitution, the
Legislature of a State
may, by law, make
provision with respect
to all matters relating
to, or in connection
with, elections to the
Panchayats.
9. The provisions of establishment, composition and
duration of the Panchayats and Municipalities under the Act of 1994 and the Act of 2009 respectively are reproduced as under:
Sec. Rajasthan Panchayati Sec. Rajasthan Raj Act, 1994 Municipalities Act, 2009 9 Establishment of 5 Establishment and Panchayat.
incorporation of
(1) The State
Government may, by Municipality. -
notification in the (1) In every transitional
Official Gazette, declare area, there shall be any local area, or a established a Municipal cantonment board Board and every such constituted under any Municipal Board shall be law for the time being a body corporate by the in force to be Panchayat name of the Municipal Circle and for every Board of the place by local area declared as reference to which the such there shall be a Municipality is known Panchayat. and shall have (2) Every Panchayat perpetual succession shall, by the name and a common seal and may sue or be sued in notified in the Official its corporate name.
Gazette, be a body (2) In every smaller corporate having perpetual succession urban area, there shall and common seal and be established a shall, subject to any Municipal Council and restrictions and (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (19 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] conditions imposed by every such Municipal or under this Act or any Council shall be a body other law, have power corporate by the name to acquire, by purchase, gift, or otherwise, to of the Municipal Council hold, administer and of the city by reference transfer property, both to which the movable and Municipality is known immovable, and to enter into any contract and shall have and shall, by the said perpetual succession name, sue and be sued. and a common seal and (3) The State may sue and be sued in Government may, at any time, after one its corporate name.
month's notice (3) In every larger
published in the urban area, there shall
prescribed manner
be established a
either on its own motion
or at the request of the Municipal Corporation
Panchayat or of the and every such
residents of the Municipal Corporation
Panchayat Circle, and
shall be a body
by notification in the
Official Gazette, change corporate by the name
the name [or place of of the Municipal
office] of any such Corporation of the city
Panchayat.
by reference to which
the Municipality is
known and shall have
perpetual succession
and a common seal and
may sue and be sued in
its corporate name:
Provided that a
Municipality under this
Section may not be
constituted in such
urban area or part
thereof as the Governor
may, having regard to
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (20 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by notification, specify to be an industrial township:
Provided further that having regard to the cultural, historic, tourist or other like importance of an urban area, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exclude such area from the Municipality and constitute, or without excluding such area from the Municipality constitute in addition to the Municipality, a development authority to exercise such powers and discharge such functions in the said area as may be prescribed and notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this Act, may, in (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (21 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] relation to such area, delegate, by notification in the Official Gazette, such municipal powers, functions and duties to the said authority as it may think appropriate for the proper, rapid and planned development of such area.
12 Composition of a 6 Composition of
Panchayat. Municipality. - (1)
Subject to the
(1) A Panchayat shall
provisions contained in
consist of- the succeeding sub-
(a) a Sarpanch, and Sections, but save as
Provided in the
(b) directly elected following provisions of
Panchas from as many this sub-Section, all
wards as are seats in a Municipality
shall be filled by
determined under Sub-
persons chosen by
Section (2). direct election from the
(2) The State territorial constituencies
known as wards, the
Government shall, in
number of such seats,
accordance with such not being less than
rules as may be framed thirteen, being fixed by
in this behalf, determine the State Government
the number or wards, from time to time by
notification in the
not being less than five
Official Gazette: -
for each Panchayat (a) the following shall
Circle, and thereupon represent in the
so divide the Panchayat Municipal Board,
Circle into single Municipal Council or, as
the case may be,
member ward that the
Municipal Corporation,
population of each ward viz: -
is, so far as practicable, (i) the member of the
the same throughout Rajasthan Legislative
the Panchayat Circle. Assembly representing
a constituency which
comprises wholly or
partly the area of a
Municipality; and
(ii) six persons in case
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (22 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] of Municipal Board, eight persons in case of Municipal Council and twelve persons in case of Municipal Corporation, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration, to be nominated by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette:
Provided that-
(i) the provisions
contained in Section 24
and Section 35 shall be
applicable to the
persons to be
nominated or
nominated members;
(ii) the State
Government shall have
power to withdraw a
nominated member at
any time;
(iii) a nominated
member shall not have
the right to vote in the
meetings of a
Municipality;
(iv) the number of
persons to be
nominated each in
Municipal Board,
Municipal Council and
Municipal Corporation
under sub-clause (ii) of
clause (a) shall include
one person with
disability.
(b) the member of the
House of the People
representing a
constituency which
comprises wholly or
partly the area of a
Municipal Council or, as
the case may be, a
Municipal Corporation
shall represent on such
Council or such
Corporation:
Provided that the
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (23 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] member referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) shall have a right to vote in the meetings of a Municipal Board, a Municipal Council or, as the case may be, a Municipal Corporation, and the member referred to in clause (b) shall have a right to vote in the meetings of a Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation:
Provided further that the members referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a), and clause
(b) shall not be subject to any disqualification or any other proceedings under the provisions of this Act.
(2) Upon the completion of each census after the establishment of the Municipality, the number of seats shall be re-determined by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette on the basis of the population of the municipal area as ascertained at the latest census:
Provided that the determination of seats as aforesaid shall not affect the existing composition of the Municipality until the expiry of its term.
(3) In so fixing the total number of seats for a Municipality, the State Government shall specify the number respectively of general seats and of seats reserved for women and for members of the Scheduled Castes or for (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (24 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] members of the Scheduled Tribes or for both or persons belonging to the Backward Classes as it may in each case determine.
(4) The number of seats reserved for members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall, in relation to the total number of seats fixed for a Municipality, bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion as the population of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in the municipal area bears to the total population thereof.
(5) The percentage of seats reserved for the Backward Classes shall be such as the percentage of the combined population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the total population in the municipal area falls short of fifty:
Provided that the percentage of seats so reserved for the Backward Classes shall not exceed twenty-one:
Provided further that at least one seat shall be reserved for the Backward Classes in every Municipality where the percentage of the combined population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the total population in the municipal area does not exceed seventy.
(8) The reservation of (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (25 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes under sub-Sections (3), (5) and (6) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334 of the Constitution of India.
(9) All the seats fixed
for a Municipality,
general as well as
reserved, shall be filled
up by direct election
from the wards in the
municipal area and
such election shall be
held in the prescribed
manner.
Explanation.- If a
fraction forms part of
the number of seats
computed under this
section, the number of
seats shall be increased
to the next higher
number in case the
fraction consists of half
or more of a seat and
the fraction shall be
ignored in case it
consists of less than
half of a seat.
17. Duration of, and 7 Term of office. -
election to the (1) Every Municipality
Panchayati Raj unless sooner dissolved
Institutions.- under the provisions of
[(1) Every Panchayati this Act, shall continue
Raj Institution, unless for five years from the
sooner dissolved under date appointed for its
this Act, shall continue first meeting and no
for five years from the longer.
date of the first meeting (2) A Municipality
of the respective constituted upon the
institution and no dissolution of a
longer. Municipality before the
[Explanation - The expiration of its
meeting held for the duration shall continue
election of Chairperson only for the remainder
of a Zila Parishad or of the period for which
Panchayat Samiti or, as the dissolved
the case may be, of Up- Municipality would have
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (26 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Sarpanch of a continued under sub-
Panchayat shall be Section (1).
deemed to be the first Explanation.- For the
meeting of the purposes of this
respective Panchayati Section, the expression
Raj Institution.] "first meeting" means
(2)The the meeting of the
Superintendence, elected members of the
direction and control of Municipality held
the preparation of immediately after the
electoral rolls for and general elections.
the conduct of, all
elections to the
Panchayat Raj
Institution shall be
vested in the State
Election Commission.
(3)The election to
constitute a Panchayati
Raj Institution shall be
completed -
(a)before the expiration
of its duration specified
in sub-Section (1); and
(b)in the case of
dissolution, before the
expiration of a period of
six months from the
date its dissolution:
Provided that where the
remainder of the period
for which the dissolved
Panchayat Raj
Institution would have
continued is less than
six months, it shall not
be necessary to hold
any election under this
clause for constituting
the Panchayati Raj
Institution for such
period.
(4) A Panchayati Raj
Institution constituted
upon its dissolution
before the expiration of
its duration, shall
continue only for the
reminder of the period
for which it would have
continued under sub-
Section (1) had it not
been so dissolved.
(5) The State
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (27 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Government may, from time to time, make provisions by rules with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with the election to the Panchayati Raj Institution including those in relation to the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of wards or constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such institutions.
10. Bare perusal of the above indicates that Article 243B, 243C, 243E, 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 9, 12 and 17 of the Act of 1994 deals with the provisions of composition, election and duration of the Panchayats. Similarly Article 243Q, 243R, 243U & 243ZA of the Constitution of India and Section 5, 6 & 7 of the Act of 2009 deals with the provisions of composition, duration and elections of the Municipalities. Perusal of all above provisions clearly indicates that the duration of the Panchayats & Municipalites would be of five years and it can be extended for further six months and administrators can be appointed for this intervening period for discharging the functions, works and duties of these institutions. But in any case, this duration of six months cannot be extended beyond the expiry of six months.
11. Section 94 of the Act of 1994 deals with the power of the Government to dissolve a Panchayati Raj Institution. The same reads as under:
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (28 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] "Sec.94.Power of Government to dissolve a Panchayati Raj Institution.- If at any time Government is satisfied that a Panchayati Raj Institution is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or otherwise by law, or have exceeded or abused its powers, the Government may by an order published, alongwith the reasons thereof, in the Official Gazette, declare the Panchayati Raj Institution to be incompetent or in default or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the case may be, and may dissolve such Panchayati Raj Institution on and from a date to be specified in the order of dissolution : Provided that no action shall be taken under this sub-section unless the Panchayati Raj Institution has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of submitting an explanation and of being heard if the Panchayati Raj Institution so desires.
Explanation. - If for any reason the number of vacancies in a Panchayati Raj Institution exceeds two-third of the total number of seats, the Panchayati Raj Institution shall be deemed to be not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or under this Act."
12. Section 95 of the Act of 1994 deals with the consequences of such dissolution, which reads as under:
"Sec.95. Consequences of dissolution.
(1) When a Panchayati Raj Institution is dissolved under this Act, the following consequences shall ensue:-
(a) all the members of the Panchayati Raj Institution including the chairperson shall, on the date of dissolution vacate their respective offices but without prejudice to their eligibility for re- election or re-appointment.
(b) all powers and duties of the Panchayati Raj Institution shall, during the period of dissolution, be exercised and performed by such administrator as the State Government may appoint in this behalf; and (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (29 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
(c) all property vested in the Panchayati Raj Institution shall, during the period of dissolution, vest in the Government.
(2) If it shall not be possible to reconstitute the Panchayati Raj Institution within the time specified in Clause (b) of Sub-Sec. (3), of Sec.
17 because of any stay by any competent Court or authority on any general election to the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned and the proceedings consequent thereon the consequences specified in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) shall follow.
(3)An order of dissolution made under Section 94 together with a statement of the reasons thereof shall be laid before the House of the State Legislature, as soon as may be, after it has been made."
Bare perusal of Section 95(1)(b) of the Act of 1994 clearly indicates that during the period of dissolution, all powers and duties of the Panchayati Raj Institution shall be exercised and performed by such Administrator, as appointed by the State Government in this behalf.
13. Section 322 of the Act of 2009 deals with the power of the Government to dissolve the municipality and the same reads as under:
"Sec.322. Power of Government to dissolve Municipality in case of incompetency or having less than two third elected members.
- (1) If at any time the State Government is satisfied that the Municipality is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or otherwise by law, or has exceeded, or abused its powers, the State Government may, by an order published along with the reasons thereof, in the Official Gazette, declare the Municipality to be incompetent or in default, or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the case may be, and may dissolve (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (30 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] such Municipality as from a date to be specified in the order of dissolution:
Provided that no action shall be taken under this sub-Section unless the Municipality through its Chairperson has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of submitting an explanation and of being heard, if the Municipality so desires: Provided further that no order under this sub- Section shall be passed-
(i) unless the State Government has drawn up a statement setting out distinctly the charges against the Municipality and sent the same for inquiry in the prescribed manner and findings to a Tribunal consisting of a Chairman and not less than two members, constituted in the prescribed manner, or
(ii) otherwise than in conformity with such findings.
Explanation.- If for any reason the number of vacancies in a Municipality exceeds two-thirds of the total number of seats, the Municipality shall be deemed to be not competent to perform the duties imposed on it by or under this Act. (2) The State Government shall dissolve the Municipality if at any time the number of its elected members falls short of two third of its total members.
(3) When a Municipality is dissolved under sub- Section (1) or any other provision of this Act, the following consequences shall ensue:
(a) all members of the Municipality including the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson shall, on the date specified in the order of dissolution, vacate their respective offices but without prejudice to their eligibility for re-election or re- appointment; and
(b) all powers and duties of the Municipality shall, during the period of dissolution, be exercised and performed by such officer as an Administrator as the State Government appoints in this behalf.
(4) An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (31 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] necessary to hold any election under this sub- Section for constituting the Municipality for such period.
(5) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under Section 7 had it not been so dissolved.
(6) An order of dissolution made under this Section together with statement of the reasons thereof shall be laid before the House of the State Legislature, as soon as may be, after it has been made."
Bare reading of Section 322 (a) & (b) of the Act of 2009 reveals that all members of the Municipality shall vacate their respective offices, on the dissolution of a Municipality and thereafter, all powers and duties of the members shall be exercised and performed by such officer as an Administrator as the State Government appoints in this behalf.
14. Bare perusal of Section 95(1)(b) of the Act of 1994 and Section 322(3)(b) of the Act of 2009 clearly indicates that in case of dissolution of a Panchayati Raj Institution and a Municipality, the powers and duties of these institutions would be performed by the 'Administrator' appointed by the State Government in this behalf.
15. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is whether a Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Member of the Municipality can be allowed to be appointed or continue to act as an Administrator of such Municipality even after completion of his/her term on the said post?
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (32 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
16. This fact is not in dispute that all the petitioners were elected as Sarpanch of their respective Gram Panchayats in the month of January, 2020.
17. This fact is also not in dispute that in exercise of the powers contained under Section 3 of the Act of 2009, the areas previously falling under their Panchayats were declared as Municipal Areas and a decision was taken to merge these Panchayats into Municipalities in exercise of power contained under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 and accordingly, a notification was issued on 01.06.2021 to treat the Sarpanch of these Panchayats as Chairman of the respective Municipalities and accordingly, orders were passed in this regard by the State Government in exercise of the powers contained under Section 43 of the Act of 2009.
18. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioners were allowed to continue and act as Chairman of their newly constituted Municipalities. This is not in dispute that all the petitioners have completed their five-year elected term in the month of January, 2025. Therefore, a notification was issued on 22.01.2025 to appoint Sub-Divisional Officers as Administrators of their respective Municipalities.
19. In the notification dated 16.01.2025 it has been observed that various Panchayats have completed their tenure on 31.01.2025 and fresh elections could not be held, due to unavoidable reasons. Thus, Sarpanchs of their respective Panchayats were appointed as Administrator to perform the duties and functions of their respective Panchayats. Now, the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (33 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] petitioners are claiming their right to continue as Chairman of their respective Panchayats till the new elections are conducted in-spite of completion of their tenure, relying on the fact that other Sarpanchs have been allowed to continue as Administrators of their respective Panchayats pursuant to the notification dated 16.01.2025.
20. There is a clear distinction between the provisions contained under Section 95(1)(b) of the Act 1994 and Section 322(3)(b) of the Act of 2009. In the event of dissolution of a Panchayati Raj Institution, all powers and duties of such institution shall be exercised and performed by an Administrator to be appointed by the State Government. Whereas in case of dissolution of a Municipality, all these powers and duties shall be exercised and performed by "such officer" as an "Administrator" appointed by the State Government.
Under Section 322(3)(b) of the Act of 2009, the term "officer" has been specifically used, whereas Section 95(1)(b) of the Act of 1994 does not use the term "officer". Meaning thereby, after the dissolution of a Panchayat, any individual can be appointed as an "Administrator" to discharge the powers and duties of the Panchayat. The provisions contained under these Acts represent a reasonable classification and the petitioners have not assailed/challenged the validity of these provisions or alleged that these contradictory provisions are violative of their fundamental right contained under Article 14 (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (34 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] of the Constitution of India, hence, the same is required to be declared as ultra-vires or unconstitutional.
21. The discretion to appoint an 'Administrator', following the dissolution of Panchayats and Municipalities, vests with the State Government. While exercising its discretion, the State Government appointed the Sarpanch as Administrator of his/her respective Panchayats, even after the completion of his/her term. However, in the case of Municipality, the State Government has decided to appoint the Sub Divisional Officer as 'Administrator' of the respective Municipalities, after completion of petitioners' five-year elected term.
22. The petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the State to allow them to continue on the post of 'Chairman' in the capacity of 'Administrator' of their respective Municipalities, even after completion of their five-year elected term. The petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate any legal right to continue on the post of Chairman, in the capacity of 'Administrator', even after completion of their five- year elected term.
It is a settled proposition of law that only a person who has suffered a 'legal injury' or whose 'legal right', whether guaranteed under any Statutory Act or Part-III of the Constitution of India, has been violated, then and then only he can invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. This settled proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (35 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Pathan (supra) wherein it has been held in para 9 and 10 as under:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised."
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (36 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
24. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have failed to establish their fundamental or statutory right to claim continuation as Chairperson, in the capacity of Administrator, even after completion of their five-year elected term. Hence, they are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. The petitioners are asserting their claim under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by referring to the order by which the Sarpanchs of other Panchayats have been allowed to continue in their respective offices despite the dissolution of the Panchayats and completion of their five-year tenure.
26. Equality before law and equal protection of laws form the heart and soul of the constitutional framework adopted by this country. The right to equality and equal protection of laws under Article 14 is the genus while the right against discrimination is the species. Equality, as contemplated under the Constitutional scheme, implies equality among equals. The doctrine of equality is considered to be a corollary to the concept of Rule of Law which postulates that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any individual must be fair and referable to legal authority. What Article 14 prohibits is the class legislation and not reasonable classification. If classification is based upon reasonable criteria and the persons belonging to well-defined class are treated equally, then the vice of discrimination would not be attracted. In order to withstand the test of reasonable classification, the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (37 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] impugned statute, order or notification is required to satisfy the twin tests of permissible classification viz.,
(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and;
(ii) that, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned statute or order.
27. Mere differential treatment, by itself, cannot be termed as an "anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution". When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist upon absolute equality by adopting a rigid and pedantic approach, as against a pragmatic one.
28. Such differentiation would not be termed as arbitrary, as the object of the classification itself is meant for providing benefits to an identified group of persons who constitute a class of their own. When the basis of differentiation is clearly distinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified, the object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue and economic considerations are certainly valid and permissible parameters in classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classification is nothing but a valid discrimination. That being the position, there can never be an injury to the concept of equality enshrined under the Constitution, not being an inflexible doctrine.
29. A larger latitude is mandated on the part of the Court, in dealing with a challenge to the classification, introduced either by the Legislature or the Executive, as the case may be. There (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (38 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] is no way, Courts could act like appellate authorities especially when a classification is introduced by way of a policy decision clearly identifying the group of beneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials.
30. The question as to whether a classification is reasonable or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable, common man's approach, keeping in mind the avowed object behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as a genus, a right to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When two identified groups are unequal, certainly they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classification thus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined under Article 14 when there exists an intelligible differentia between two groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore, an interference would only be called for, on the Court being convinced that the classification causes inequality among similarly placed persons. The role of the Court being restrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concerned authorities. When a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts, constituted for the purpose, Courts will have to be more wary of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided.
31. As long as the classification does not smack of inherent arbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there may not be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of the other wings which is required to be respected except when a (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (39 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] classification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificial difference and itself being discriminatory. A decision made sans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either a suspicious or a microscopic eye. Good-faith and intention are to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has to keep in mind that the role of the Court is on the illegality involved as against the governance.
32. For the aforesaid principle of law, this Court would like to quote the elucidations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575, wherein it has been held as under:
"36. Differential treatment in our opinion does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It violates Article 14 only when there is no conceivable reasonable basis for the differentiation. In the present case, as pointed out above, there is a reasonable basis and hence in our opinion there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
37. In our opinion it is not prudent or pragmatic for the Court to insist on absolute equality when there are diverse situations and contingencies, as in the present case. In view of the inherent complexities involved in modern society, some free play must be given to the executive authorities in this connection.
xxx xxx xxx
39. In our opinion, there is often a misunderstanding about Article 14 of the Constitution, and often lawyers and Judges tend to construe it in a doctrinaire and absolute sense, which may be totally impractical and make the working of the executive authorities extremely difficult if not impossible.
40. As Lord Denning observed:
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (40 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] This power to overturn executive decision must be exercised very carefully, because you have got to remember that the executive and the local authorities have their very own responsibilities and they have the right to make decisions. The courts should be very wary about interfering and only interfere in extreme cases, that is, cases where the court is sure they have gone wrong in law or they have been utterly unreasonable. Otherwise you would get a conflict between the courts and the Government and the authorities, which would be most undesirable. The courts must act very warily in this matter." (See Judging the World by Garry Sturgess Philip Chubb.)"
41. In our opinion Judges must maintain judicial self-restraint while exercising the powers of judicial review of administrative or legislative decisions. "In view of the complexities of modern society", wrote Justice Frankfurter, while Professor of Law at Harvard University, "and the restricted scope of any man's experience, tolerance and humility in passing judgment on the worth of the experience and beliefs of others become crucial faculties in the disposition of cases. The successful exercise of such judicial power calls for rare intellectual disinterestedness and penetration, lest limitation in personal experience and imagination operate as limitations of the Constitution. These insights Mr Justice Holmes applied in hundreds of cases and expressed in memorable language: It is misfortune if a Judge reads his conscious or unconscious sympathy with one side or the other prematurely into the law, and forgets that what seem to him to be first principles are believed by half his fellow men to be wrong.
xxx xxx xxx
43. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges' preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Chief Justice Neely, former Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals:
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (41 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] "I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge. I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financer, banker, stockbroker or system management analyst. It is the height of folly to expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation. It is not the function of a Judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administrator."
44. In administrative matters the Court should, therefore, ordinarily defer to the judgment of the administrators unless the decision is clearly violative of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary. In this connection, Justice Frankfurter while Professor of Law at Harvard University wrote in The Public and its Government:
"With the great men of the Supreme Court constitutional adjudication has always been statecraft. As a mere Judge, Marshall had his superiors among his colleagues. His supremacy lay in his recognition of the practical needs of the Government. The great Judges are those to whom the Constitution is not primarily a text for interpretation but the means of ordering the life of a progressive people."
33. Hence, in the light of the above-noted judgment, it is clear that the Court should refrain from interfering in administrative matters unless the decision is clearly violative of some statute or is shockingly arbitrary.
34. The petitioners have failed to establish any violation or infringement of their rights, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
35. The petitioners cannot be permitted to continue on the post of Chairman, in the capacity of Administrator, in terms of Article 243U of the Indian Constitution and Section 7 of the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (42 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Act of 2009. This proposition of law has also been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sarpanchs, who were seeking directions to permit them to continue on the said post, even after completion of their elected term. It has been held in the case of Guddi (supra) in para 16 to 20, which reads as under:
"16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the final relief, as claimed by the petitioners herein, pertains to continuation of the petitioners on the post as occupied by them, inspite of the fact that their tenure on the said post has already come to an end.
17. This Court is bound by the constitutional mandate of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, as quoted hereinabove, wherein duration of Panchayats is prescribed and thus, final relief in the present petitions in relation to increasing or extending the tenure of the present petitioners, beyond the duration prescribed, cannot be granted by this Court.
18. Furthermore, this Court is of the firm opinion that once the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide the aforequoted orders, has finally decided the controversy pertaining to elections of the Panchayati Raj Institutions by accepting the State Election Commission's undertaking that they shall complete the elections in the second half of April, 2020, strictly in accordance with law, then any relief, if granted to the present petitioners, would be overreaching the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court cited and quoted above shall not have any bearing in the present case, as the provision of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 empowering the appointment of administrator is not under challenge in these writ petitions. The relief of continuation of the petitioners on their respective post, beyond the stipulated tenure, as sought by them, shall amount to breach of the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (43 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] constitutional provisions of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India.
20. In light of the aforesaid observations, no case for making any interference in the present writ petitions is made out, and the same are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed."
36. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others while deciding CWP No.22662/2004 on 03.10.2024, has also taken the similar view in para 10 to 14 which reads as under:
"10. Sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India explicitly declares, that the term of every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years, from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. The conclusion therefrom, is that, the term of every democratically elected Gram Panchayat, shall last upto a period of 5 years, unless dissolution thereof earlier takes place, through the valid invocation of any subsisting law. Moreover, thereupons a conclusion also becomes sparked, that the tenure of 5 years whereupto the term of a democratically elected Gram Panchayat is to last, thus shall be computed from the date of the first meeting and shall not last beyond the said term of 5 years.
11. Moreover, Section 14 of the Act of 1994, declares that the term of office of Sarpanch and of the Panch of a Gram Panch, shall co-terminate with the term of the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Act of 1994 also carries an explicit speaking, that the term of every Gram Panchayat, unless validly dissolved earlier under the Act of 1994 rather shall continue for a term of 5 years from the date of its first meeting. Cumulatively therebys there is cotermini inter se the tenure of functionings of the democratically elected Sarpanch and of the Panches to Gram Panchayat, thus vis-a-vis the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (44 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] term of the Gram Panchayat, term whereof is to be not lasting for a period more than 5 years, since the apposite first meeting takes place. Resultantly, any democratically elected Sarpanch or Panch to a Gram Panchayat, thus cannot claim that his/her term is to last longer, than the term of the Gram Panchayat concerned, nor can any Sarpanch or a Panch who becomes elected to a Gram Panchayat, can claim that beyond the period of 5 years since general elections, or bye- elections become conducted to the Gram Panchayat concerned, rather he or she is to continue, nor can claim that beyond five years from the first apposite meeting, thus he/she is to be permitted to serve as such. In case such a latitude is provided, therebys the effective declarations (supra) as made both in sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India and also in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, would become rendered completely ineffective, and/or would become redundant. The said ill- effectivity or redundancy is to be avoided.
12. Even otherwise, sub Section 1 of Section 22 of the Act of 1994, thus naturally falls in alignment with the explicit declarations (supra), to the extent, that whenever any vacancy occurs by death, resignation or removal or otherwise of a Sarpanch or Panch, thereupon the so created vacancy shall be filled up by way of election. The signification to be imparted to the above statutory provision, is naturally that, when any democratically elected Sarpanch or Panch dies, resigns or is removed, thereupons the vacancy which become so created by the occurrence of the events (supra), would result in bye-elections, being held. However, yet the conducting of bye- elections, in the event of the above situations arising, thus would not endow any right either to the Sarpanch or to the Panch, who is elected in a bye-election, to claim that he/she be permitted to continue for 5 years from the date of the conducting of such bye-elections or from the date of holding of the first apposite meeting, as arises on accrual of situation (supra), as therebys the mandate enclosed in sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India and also in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, would become (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (45 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] completely defeated, besides would lead to ill redundancy thereofs becoming generated.
13. Though, in the instant case the vacancy arose not on account of death, resignation or removal of the Sarpanch or of the Panch, but arose on account of delays in the holding of elections. The said became spurred from the rejection of nomination papers, whereafter through orders (supra) becoming made by this Court, to validly conduct bye-elections, thus the bye-elections became held. Consequently, if bye-elections were conducted on account of rejection of the nomination papers and when the conducting of the said bye-elections were under the orders passed by this Court, on 13.01.2023 in CM-1127-
CWP-2022 in CWP-35054-2019. Resultantly, the conducting of bye-elections but in the event of the nomination papers becoming rejected at the initial stage, but would fall within the ambit of the statutory coinage "or otherwise" as occurs in sub Section 1 of Section 22 of the Act of 1994.
14. Therefore, the present petitioner who became elected as a Sarpanch in a bye-election, which was conducted in the year 2023, thus cannot claim that she is to be bestowed with a right to continue for a period of 5 years from the date of hers becoming elected as Sarpanch, or from the date of the apposite first meeting being held, as therebys the purposeful explicit declaration carried in sub Article 1 of Article 243E of the Constitution of India and also in Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, would become completely defeated."
37. There is a lot of difference between the functions and duties of the Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities as per Schedule XI and XII attached to the Indian Constitution. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Sarpanchs, who have been allowed to continue as 'Administrator' of their respective dissolved Panchayats until fresh elections are held.
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (46 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] Conclusion:
38. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no merits and substance in these writ petitions. These writ petitions lack merit, hence, deserves rejection and the same are hereby dismissed.
39. The stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected.
Concluding Remarks:
40. Democratic governance at the grassroots level is fundamental to ULBs i.e. Municipalities. As per the mandate contained under Article 243U of the Constitution of India and Sections 7 & 322(4) of the Act of 2009, the tenure of Municipalities cannot exceed for more than five years. The term of almost all of the Municipalities has already been completed and the same has been extended, but in any case, such extension cannot be exceeded beyond a period of six months after completion of their original tenure.
41. Similar view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Muna Thapa vs. State of Manipur reported in 2010 (5) Gau LT 648 and it has been held that the State is duty bound to comply with the mandate of Article 243E(3) of the Constitution of India and election of the Panchayat has to be completed before expiration of the fixed tenure and the State cannot extend the term of 'Administrator' beyond six months after expiry of duration of the Panchayats. It has been held in para 8 as under:
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (47 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] "8. It is quite settle law that the authority concerned, i.e. the State Respondents are duty bound to comply with the mandate of the Constitution provided under Art 243E(3) of the Constitution of India, wherein the election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed within expiry of duration. In order to dilute the mandatory requirement of compliance of the mandate of the Constitution of India provided under Article 243E(3) of the Constitution, the state Govt. cannot make an endeavour to amend the provisions of Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 so as to extend the term of the Administrative Committee beyond six months after the expiry of the duration of the Panchayat. In other words, the State- Respondents cannot amend the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 so as not to hold the election in derogation of the mandate under Article 243E of the Constitution of India, wherein the election to constitute Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration i.e. five years."
42. An identical issue came before the Division Bench of the High Court Manipur at Imphal in the case of Mayanglamban Joykumar Singh and Another vs. State of Manipur reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Mani 439 and the following issue/question of law came for adjudication in para 1, which reads as under:
"1. The core question involved in the present writ petition is the legality and validity of the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 [in short MPR (Amendment) Act, 1996] with respect to Section 22 (3) of the parent Act i.e. Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short MPR Act, 1994) whereby, the existing member of the Panchayat will 'continue' to be members of the Gram-Panchayat even after expiry of its 5 years term upon appointment of the Administrative Committee by replacing the original word 'cease' (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (48 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] by 'continue' in Section 22(3) of the Act of 1994 by Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 1996."
43. The legality and constitutional validity of the amendment was challenged before the Manipur High Court against the amended provisions made by the Government of Manipur by which the members of the Gram Panchayats were allowed to continue even after expiry of their five year continuous tenure and it has been held that upon expiration of five year tenure, the elected members 'cease' to be member of such panchayat and all powers, functions and duties of the Panchayats shall be exercised by the Administrative Committee. It has been held in para 20 to 23 as under:
"20. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the amendment of Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 to the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with respect to replacing the word 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the original Act by word 'continue' is ultra vires the provision of Article 243E and in violation of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cases of (i) Kishansing Tomar (supra), (ii) Suresh Mahajan v. State of M.P. (supra), (iii) Prof. B.K. Chandrashekar (supra), & (iv) Muna Thapa (supra). Hence, applying the principle of 'reading down' of statute to save the main amendment by striking out the offending and absurd portion only, it is held that the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 with respect to Section 6 of the amendment Act introducing the word 'continue' in place of 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the original Act is ultra vires the provisions of the Article 243E of the Constitution of India as well as Section 22(2) of the MPR Act, 1994. The original word 'cease' is retained in Section 22(3) of the Act so that the absurd condition of indirect extension of the tenure of the Gram Panchayat beyond 5 years which was introduced by the (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (49 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] amendment in Section 22(3) of the Act, is avoided. In order to save the Amendment Act of 1996, this Court resort to the doctrine of 'reading down' by restoring the original word 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the Act of 1994, thereby preventing the situation where the elected members of the Panchayat can continue till next election is notified. However, the remaining portions of Amendment Act of 1996 including the deletion of word 'Administrator' from Section 22, are upheld.
21. Another ground for striking down of the amendment in Section 22(3) of the Act of 1994 of replacing the word 'cease' by the word 'continue' is the duality of the body to exercise the power, function and duty of the Gram Panchayat. By replacing the word 'cease' by 'continue', the amendment in Section 22(3) of the Act allows the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, whose term has already expired, to 'continue' without a time limit, even after the appointment of the Administrative Committee under Section 22(1)(b)(i) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj, 1994. The amended Section 22(3) stipulates that the Administrative Committee will still exercise the power, function and duty of the Gram Panchayat, notwithstanding the continuation of the elected members in terms of the amendment. This creates a situation where there are two bodies-one, the elected members as per amended Section 22(3) and two, the Administrative Committee appointed under Section 22(1)(b)(i) of the Act with all the powers and functions of the Gram Panchayat.
22. It is the settled law that the tenure of a Panchayat is 5 years as mandated by Article 243E of the Constitution and Section 20 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj, 1994. Original Section 22(3) of the Act stipulates that once the Administrative Committee is appointed under Section 22(1)(b)(i) of the Act upon the expiration of the five years tenure, the elected members 'cease' to be members of such Panchayat and all the power, function and duty of the Panchayat shall be exercised by the Administrative Committee. Section 6 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 replaces the word (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (50 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] 'cease' in Section 22(3) of the Act by the word 'continue', but there is no corresponding amendment in Section 22(3) for transferring the power, function and duty of the Gram Panchayat to the elected members so 'continued'. In other words, the elected members will 'continue' as members without any power and the power, function and duty of the Panchayat will be exercised by the Administrative Committee. This reduces the continuation of the elected members as per amended Section 22(3) of the Act for name's sake and without any power. Ironically, there are two bodies in a Gram Panchayat whose tenure has already expired : (i) the elected members allowed to continue by amended Section 22(3), and (ii) the Administrative Committee appointed under Section 22(1) (b)(i) of the Act exercising all the powers, functions and duties of the Gram Panchayat. The amendment in Section 22(3) of replacing the word 'cease' by 'continue' does not serve any fruitful purpose except for creating a confusion, absurdity and anomaly of having dual bodies for the same office. The earlier arrangement, of appointment of Administrative Committee to exercise all functions of the Panchayat and ceasing of the tenure of the elected members, is more logical and practical. By the amendment introduced in Section 22(3), the working of the Panchayat has become chaos and uncertain. In the circumstances narrated above, we are of the view that the amendment in Section 22(3) of the Act of replacing the word 'cease' by 'continue' is illogical and is without any fruitful purpose, except for creating two bodies vying for the same power and function. The purpose of amendment in a statute is to remove difficulties, to introduce new rights and/or in compliance of court's recommendations for some modifications. However, such amendment is not expected to create a chaotic situation making the working of the Panchayat impractical. Accordingly, the amendment in Section 22(3) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 of replacing the word 'cease' by the word 'continue' by the amendment Act of 1996, can be quashed on the ground of (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (51 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] absurdity so that the purpose of the amendment is workable and meaningful.
23. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the word 'continue' introduced by the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 to Section 22(3) is deleted and the original word 'cease' as contained in the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is retained in Section 22(3) of the Act, 1994. However, the word 'Administrator' as contained in Section 22 (1)(b)
(ii), Section 22(2), Section 22(3) and Section 22(4) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj, 1994 shall stand deleted in terms of the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996."
44. It is pertinent to note here that in-spite of the constitutional mandate, neither the Government of Rajasthan nor the Election Commission has adhered to the prescribed timeline for conducting elections of the Municipalities, which is quite an essential requirement for the health of local democracy. In the instant case, the term of elected representatives of various Gram Panchayats has expired in the month of January, 2025. These Panchayats have been merged into Municipalities in the year 2021 and the Sarpanchs of the respective Panchayats, like the petitioners, were allowed to continue as Chairman/Chair-Person of the newly formed Municipalities. However, in the meantime, the total five-year term of these representatives has expired in January, 2025, hence, they were removed from their respective posts and subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officers (for short 'SDO') were appointed as 'Administrator' to perform the functions/duties of these Municipalities. However, the maximum permissible period of six months, for such an (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (52 of 53) [CW-11107/2025] arrangement, has too expired in the month of July, 2025, but still such SDOs are continuing to function as 'Administrator' of these Municipalities, which is in clear violation of the constitutional mandate. There is no provision either under the Constitution of India or under the Act of 2009, that permits Municipalities to function without elected representatives beyond the stipulated five-year term. But, despite this, the SDOs continue to perform as 'Administrators', in utter violation of the principles of democratic governance at the local level.
45. In adherence to the importance of demarcation/divisions of the Municipalities, the Government is precluded from indefinitely postponing the election process of Municipalities, as such deferment is contrary to the mandate contained under Article 243U of the Indian Constitution. Both the Government of Rajasthan and the State Election Commission are under a constitutional obligation to conduct timely elections of the Municipalities in consonance with the constitutional mandate. Hence, under such circumstances, the Election Commission cannot be allowed to close its eyes and sit like a silent spectator.
46. In the event of persistent failure and undue delay in conducting election process of the Municipalities, it becomes incumbent upon the State Election Commission to intervene and take all necessary measures to restore the democratic process.
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:37666] (53 of 53) [CW-11107/2025]
47. Prolonged postponement of the municipal elections can lead to a governance vacuum at the local level, severely affecting the delivery of services and developmental activities at the grassroots level in urban areas.
48. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan; the Election Commission of India; and the State Election Commission to look into the matter and to do the needful by taking necessary steps in compliance of the mandate contained under Article 243-U of the Constitution of India and Section 322(4) of the Act of 2009.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/78-87 (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 11:19:50 AM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 10:23:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)