Introduction

The case of State of Rajasthan (S) v. Ashok Khetoliya And Another (S) (2022 INSC 289) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on March 10, 2022, addresses the procedural legitimacy of notifications issued by the State Government for constituting Municipal Boards. The appellant, the State of Rajasthan, contested a High Court order that had set aside a notification declaring Gram Panchayat Roopbas as a Municipal Board. The High Court had invalidated the notification citing the absence of a public notification under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates the designation of areas as “transitional” before declaring them as Municipal Bodies.

The key issues revolved around the interpretation of constitutional provisions under Part IXA, particularly Article 243Q, and the extent of legislative powers vested in the State Legislature versus procedural requirements. The parties involved were the State of Rajasthan as the appellant and Ashok Khetoliya along with another respondent challenging the notification.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Rajasthan’s decision, holding that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, was valid and did not require a separate notification under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution. The Court found that the High Court had misinterpreted the scope of Part IXA and Article 243Q. It affirmed that the State Legislature holds plenary power to legislate on municipal matters, provided the laws are not inconsistent with the constitutional mandate. The absence of a separate public notification under Article 243Q(2) did not invalidate the notification under the Municipalities Act, as the latter was not inconsistent with the constitutional provisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referenced several key judgments to support its decision:

• Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur (1980) 2 SCC 295: Established that the power to declare a geographical area as a town is a legislative function and does not mandate public consultation unless specified by the parent Act.
• Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra (1989) 3 SCC 396: Emphasized that governmental decisions in municipal constitutions are not subject to judicial interference unless they violate statutory provisions.
• Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 16 SCC 356: Initially held that the absence of a notification under Article 243Q(2) invalidated the constitution of a Municipal Board, a stance later distinguished in the present judgment.
• Parmar Samantsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat 2021 SCC OnLine SC 138: Reinforced the plenary power of State Legislatures to legislate on municipal matters, provided there is no constitutional inconsistency.
• Pune Municipal Corporation v. Promoters and Builders Association (2004) 10 SCC 796: Discussed the arbitrary nature of legislative notifications, though the present judgment found it not directly applicable.
• MGR Industries Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 3 SCC 494: Reiterated the necessity of following statutory procedures but did not mandate an additional constitutional notification.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the relationship between constitutional mandates and statutory provisions. It emphasized that Part IXA of the Constitution was designed to empower State Legislatures by providing a framework to strengthen Urban Local Bodies, not to constrain them with additional procedural requirements beyond their legislative competence.

The Court clarified that:

• The State Legislature has plenary authority to legislate on matters within its jurisdiction, including the constitution and classification of Municipal Bodies.
• Article 243Q and Section 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act are not inconsistent; the former provides a constitutional framework while the latter outlines statutory procedures, both aiming to reinforce local governance structures.
• The High Court erred by imposing an additional requirement for public notification under Article 243Q(2), which was not mandated by the statutory provisions.
• Precedents like Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. underline that the act of constituting a Municipality is a legislative function and does not inherently require public consultations unless specified.
• The Court differentiated the present case from Champa Lal by asserting that the notification under Section 5 was within the State's legislative competence and not in violation of constitutional mandates.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the authority of State Legislatures in defining and constituting Municipal Bodies without being bound by additional procedural steps beyond those prescribed in their respective Municipal Acts. It clarifies that as long as the statutory provisions align with constitutional mandates, judicial interventions based on procedural deficiencies are unwarranted.

Future cases involving the constitution of Municipal Bodies can rely on this precedent to assert the primacy of statutory frameworks provided by State Legislatures, provided they harmonize with constitutional provisions under Part IXA.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Khetoliya underscores the autonomy of State Legislatures in structuring and constituting Urban Local Bodies within the constitutional framework. By affirming that the absence of a separate notification under Article 243Q(2) does not invalidate statutory notifications under the Municipalities Act, the Court has reinforced the primacy of legislative processes in municipal governance. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for balancing legislative authority with constitutional mandates, ensuring that local self-governance is both effective and constitutionally compliant.

Legal practitioners and scholars must note the delineation between constitutional provisions and statutory enactments, recognizing that as long as State Laws align with the Constitution, procedural discrepancies alone are insufficient grounds for judicial invalidation. This enhances the stability and predictability of municipal governance, fostering robust local administrations essential for democratic governance.