Rajasthan HC Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Administrator For 49 Municipalities After Expiry Of Tenure Of Existing Elected Members

The  Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a state notification for appointment of Administrator/Authority of 49 municipalities to look after the day-to-day work of these municipalities, following the expiry of tenure of the existing elected members.

In doing so the court ruled that Section 320 (Exercise of Municipality's power pending its establishment) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009, empowered the State to appoint an officer, committee or authority until the new municipality was established following the expiry of the term of the current one.

Referring to the provision, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said, “A bare reading of Section 320 of the Act of 2009 clearly shows that after 'creation' of a Municipality, the State Government is empowered to appoint an officer, committee or authority on its behalf until a Municipality 'established' under the provisions of this Act exercises the powers and discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Municipality. In the present case, since the Municipality established under the law has completed its tenure and till the fresh election takes place and a new Municipality is established in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, the affairs of the Municipality cannot be allowed to be kept in abeyance and, therefore, to perform the day to day affairs and duties of a Municipality, the State Government is competent to appoint an officer, committee or authority to perform the functions of the Municipality till a newly constituted elected member of Municipality is established in accordance with Section 11 of the Act of 2009.”

The plea challenged the State' November 25, 2024 notification on the ground that the Administrator/Authority appointed by the State Government vide Notification is dehors the law. 

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no provision in the Act to appoint an Administrator/Authority following completion of the tenure of the municipalities. It was also argued that the procedure provided in Section 322 of the Act was not followed while issuing the challenged notification.

On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the State that under Section 320 of the Act, State was empowered to appoint an officer, committee or authority to perform functions of the municipality after its creation and before its establishment under law. It was argued since the tenure of the selected members of 49 municipalities of Rajasthan had expired, until the new municipalities were established, State appointed an Administrator/Authority to manage day-today functions in the interim period.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 320 of the Act, and accepted the arguments put forth by the State. It was further opined that the argument of not fulfilling Section 322 of the Act was rejected because recourse to Section 322 could be taken only when the municipality was dissolved on the ground of incompetency or having less than 2/3^rd elected members.

It also noted that the intention of the legislature is very clear that as per the proviso to Section 320, such an arrangement of appointment of Officer, Committee or Authority shall continue for a maximum period of six months and within six months, the Municipality shall be established in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Madhu Kanwar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

Click Here To Read/Download Order