Skip to content


Ram Lal and anr Vs. State and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Ram Lal and anr

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt:


.....forwarded to the divisional commissioner, udaipur. but, for substantiating this assertion, petitioners have not placed on record any material. there is no semblance of proof that the district collector after rejecting the objection of the petitioners have forwarded the proposal to divisional commissioner, udaipur. be that as it may, the fact remains that process of alteration in the limits of panchayati raj institutions is still inconclusive. thus, taking into account the chronological events, in my opinion, the present writ petition is premature and, at this stage, it is not worthwhile to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for upsetting the impugned proposal. it is expected that the representation submitted by the petitioners shall be examined by the competent authority objectively for making a just decision strictly in accordance with law. resultantly, no interference in this petition is called for and consequently the writ petition, is hereby, rejected summarily. (p.k.lohra).j. a.asopa/-

Judgment:


1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7073/2014 Ram Lal & Anr.

V/s.

The State of Rajasthan & ORS.Date of Order ::: 13.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioneRs.PetitioneRs.by this writ petition, has challenged precisely alteration in the limits of the pachayati raj institutions for which State Government is authorized under Section 101 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’).Present case pertains to alteration in the limits of pachayat samitis of District Dungarpur.

It is trite that alteration in the limits of panchayati raj institution, as envisaged under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, can come into offing only after publication of notification in the Official Gazette and before issuance of notification in the Official Gazette situation is fluid.

From the averments contained in the writ petition representation of the petitioners has been turned down orally by the District Collector, Dungarpur and the proposal 2 forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.

But, for substantiating this assertion, petitioners have not placed on record any material.

There is no semblance of proof that the District Collector after rejecting the objection of the petitioners have forwarded the proposal to Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that process of alteration in the limits of Panchayati Raj Institutions is still inconclusive.

Thus, taking into account the chronological events, in my opinion, the present writ petition is premature and, at this stage, it is not worthwhile to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for upsetting the impugned proposal.

It is expected that the representation submitted by the petitioners shall be examined by the competent authority objectively for making a just decision strictly in accordance with law.

Resultantly, no interference in this petition is called for and consequently the writ petition, is hereby, rejected summarily.

(P.K.LOHRA).J.

a.asopa/-




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //