Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench Petitioners cannot continue as Municipal Administrators after five-year term — petitions dismissed
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has dismissed a batch of writ petitions by former sarpanchs who sought directions allowing them to continue as chairpersons/administrators of newly constituted municipal bodies after the expiry of their five-year elected term. The Court held that the State’s notification appointing officers (Sub-Divisional Officers) as Administrators was lawful and that the petitioners failed to show any legal right to continue beyond their term
Facts
• The petitioners were elected sarpanchs in January 2020. Their areas were declared municipal areas and, by notification dated 1 June 2021, they were treated as chairpersons of the newly constituted Municipal Boards/Councils.
• All petitioners completed their five-year term in January 2025. The State issued a notification dated 22 January 2025 appointing Sub-Divisional Officers as Administrators for those Municipalities. The petitioners challenged that step, claiming discrimination because in some Panchayats sarpanchs were allowed to continue as Administrators by a different notification.
Legal questions before the Court
-
Whether a Chairman/Vice-Chairman/Member of a Municipality may be permitted to act as the Administrator of that Municipality after completion of his/her five-year elected term.
-
Whether there was any unlawful discrimination between treatment of sarpanchs (in Panchayats) and chairpersons (in Municipalities) so as to entitle the petitioners to relief under Article 226.
Court’s analysis (key points)
-
Statutory scheme differs for Panchayats and Municipalities.
The Court contrasted Part IX (Panchayats) and Part IX-A (Municipalities) of the Constitution and the respective state statutes (Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009). It noted that while both institutions normally have a five-year term and elections should be completed before expiry or within six months of dissolution, the mechanism for appointing administrators differs in the two Acts. -
Language of the Municipal Act requires an “officer” as Administrator.
Section 322(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 uses the term “such officer as an Administrator” whereas Section 95(1)(b) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 speaks of “such administrator” without specifying “officer.” The Court treated this distinction as a reasonable classification supporting different administrative treatment. -
No legally enforceable right to continue as Administrator after term.
The petitioners could not demonstrate a legal right or legal injury that entitled them to a writ of mandamus. The Court reiterated settled law that only a person who has suffered legal injury or whose statutory/constitutional right is violated can seek extraordinary relief under Article 226. -
Judicial restraint in administrative decisions.
The Court emphasized that administrative matters call for deference unless an action is clearly violative of statute or shockingly arbitrary; it found no such illegality or arbitrariness in the State’s choice to appoint officers as Administrators for Municipal bodies. -
Precedents relied upon.
The Court applied established precedents (including Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and earlier Division Bench rulings) to reinforce that extension of tenure by continuing elected functionaries requires a legal basis which was absent here.
Holding / Order
The Court found the writ petitions to be without merit and dismissed them. All pending stay applications and other applications were also rejected.
Concluding observations by the Court
The Court reiterated that democratic governance at the grassroots is fundamental and that the constitutional and statutory mandate prescribes five-year terms for ULBs; an extension of tenure by way of administrators is permitted only for the limited period contemplated by the law (generally up to six months while elections are organized). The Court observed that extension beyond the statutory period is impermissible and that the State must work to hold elections within the periods allowed by the Constitution and statutes.
Practical takeaway (as recorded by the judgment)
• Where a local area has been converted from Panchayat to Municipality, the State may validly appoint an officer (for example, a Sub-Divisional Officer) as Administrator of the Municipality after the elected term expires; former elected chairpersons do not acquire a statutory right to continue as Administrators in place of a designated officer under the Municipal Act.
• The Court underlined the limited and exceptional nature of continuation in office beyond the five-year term, and reiterated the obligation to conduct fresh elections within the statutory time-limits.
Note: This article is strictly based on the Rajasthan High Court judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11107/2025 and connected matters pronounced on 20 September 2025; all factual and legal points above cite the judgment text.
