Unconstitutional Municipality Upgradation in Rajasthan: Supreme Court Verdict

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling on April 26, 2018, addressed a significant constitutional question regarding the upgradation of Napasar village from a Gram Panchayat to a Nagar Palika (Municipality). The case revolved around the interpretation of Article 243Q of the Constitution of India and whether the State of Rajasthan had the authority to upgrade the village without following the prescribed constitutional procedure.

Background of the Case

The litigation began with the State of Rajasthan issuing a notification on October 6, 2008, upgrading the Gram Panchayat of Napasar Village to a Nagar Palika (Municipality) under Section 3(1)(A) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Ordinance, 2008. However, this notification was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court and was dismissed by a single judge. Upon appeal, the State withdrew the notification on September 18, 2009.

Subsequently, another writ petition was filed challenging the withdrawal, leading to a Division Bench ruling on May 13, 2015, quashing the withdrawal and directing the State to take necessary steps. In compliance, the State issued a fresh notification on June 2, 2016, to establish a Nagarpalika. This, too, was challenged and dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on August 3, 2016, with a Division Bench affirming the decision on September 12, 2016.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined whether the process followed by the State of Rajasthan adhered to Article 243Q of the Constitution, which governs the establishment of municipalities. The Court highlighted that Article 243Q(2) mandates the Governor to specify areas based on population, density, revenue, non-agricultural employment, and economic importance before declaring an area as a municipality.

The State relied on two notifications, dated July 4, 1995, and April 30, 2012, issued under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959, and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. However, the Supreme Court found that these notifications classified municipalities based only on population without considering the additional criteria mandated under Article 243Q(2). The Court concluded:

“In the absence of any notification which meets the requirements of Article 243Q(2), the entire exercise undertaken by the State of Rajasthan in upgrading the Napasar village Gram Panchayat to be a Nagarpalika is unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution.”

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Champa Lal, contended that the notification issued by the State was unconstitutional as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Article 243Q. He argued that no proper assessment of the area’s eligibility as a municipality was conducted, making the upgradation arbitrary and illegal.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Rajasthan defended its actions by stating that the upgradation was done in the interest of urban development. However, it was unable to present any notification that adhered to the constitutional requirement of classifying areas based on multiple factors, as outlined in Article 243Q(2).

Another respondent, A. Subba Rao, argued that various infrastructural developments had taken place in Napasar after its upgradation and reversing the decision would negatively impact industries and institutions. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating:

“It is only an apprehension. We find no basis in the pleading for such apprehensions nor do we see any reason which might lead to such a possibility.”

Judgment and Conclusion

The Supreme Court declared the notification of October 6, 2008, unconstitutional and set aside all subsequent actions taken by the State of Rajasthan related to the upgradation of Napasar village. The Court emphasized that courts must ensure compliance with constitutional provisions, regardless of whether litigants raise relevant arguments:

“It is a settled principle of law that courts are bound to take note of the Constitution and the laws.”

Thus, the appeals were allowed, and the Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan High Court’s judgments were per incuriam, as they failed to consider the constitutional requirements. This ruling reaffirmed the necessity for State authorities to adhere strictly to constitutional mandates when exercising their powers in municipal governance.

Petitioner Name: Champa Lal.
Respondent Name: State of Rajasthan and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Chelameswar, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Napasar, Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 25-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Champa Lal vs State of Rajasthan a Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category