Raj HC refuses to interfere with ward reorganization in Nokha municipality, cites bar under Article 243ZG

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the reorganization and territorial structuring of wards of the Municipal Board, Nokha, holding that judicial interference in matters relating to delimitation of municipal constituencies is barred under Article 243ZG of the Constitution.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah passed the order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 752/2026, Vikas Manch & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on March 6, 2026.

The Court held that the impugned notification dated September 1, 2025, which reorganized the wards of Municipal Board Nokha, fell squarely within the statutory power of the State Government under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and therefore did not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The Bench observed that once the statutory process of delimitation culminates in a final notification, courts cannot undertake judicial scrutiny of the territorial structuring of constituencies due to the constitutional bar contained in Article 243ZG.

The petitioners included Vikas Manch, a registered political party represented through its President Lalit Kishore Jhanwar, and Sukharam Bhadu, a social and political worker from Nokha in Bikaner district. The petition challenged the legality of the notification reorganizing wards of the Municipal Board and sought quashing of both the draft notification dated March 27, 2025 and the final notification dated September 1, 2025.

According to the petition, the ward reorganization exercise had been undertaken in violation of the statutory scheme governing municipal delimitation and reservation of wards under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The petitioners contended that the impugned exercise lacked transparency, failed to follow population-based norms and did not properly implement the reservation rotation mechanism for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and women.

It was further argued that the constitutional bar under Article 243ZG was not absolute and would not apply where the challenge is directed against jurisdictional errors, arbitrariness or mala fide exercise of statutory power. The petitioners also relied on judicial precedents including Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab and Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference to contend that courts could intervene where executive action disturbs the level playing field in electoral matters.

Opposing the petition, the State argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of the constitutional embargo under Article 243ZG of the Constitution. The State contended that the notification had been issued in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which authorizes the State Government to undertake territorial structuring and demarcation of municipal wards.

The State further submitted that the statutory scheme clearly distinguishes between two separate exercises under the Act—first, determination of the number and composition of wards under Section 6, and second, territorial structuring of those wards under Section 10. According to the respondents, these provisions operate independently and the statute does not require that ward boundaries remain frozen until a fresh census takes place.

After examining the statutory framework, the High Court held that Section 10 constitutes an independent enabling provision allowing the State Government to reorganize and territorially structure wards within an already constituted municipal body. The Court observed that the statute does not impose any condition requiring such exercise to await a fresh census.

The Bench emphasized that courts cannot read limitations into statutory provisions that the legislature has consciously not incorporated. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta and Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that judicial interpretation cannot supply omissions in statutory language.

The Court also noted that the structural composition of wards of Municipal Board Nokha had already been determined through an earlier notification dated November 22, 2024 issued under Section 6 of the Act, which had never been challenged and had therefore attained finality. The subsequent notification of September 1, 2025 merely dealt with territorial structuring of wards within the framework already determined.

Holding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional illegality, statutory violation or constitutional infirmity in the impugned notification, the Court declined to interfere with the delimitation exercise.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution would be inappropriate in view of the constitutional restraint embodied in Article 243ZG governing electoral matters.

Case Title
Vikas Manch & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 752/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur

Bench
Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Order
06 March 2026

Advocates
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Harshit Bhurani
Mr. Manish Patel

For the Respondents:
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate & AAG
Assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot

Judgments Relied Upon
Nathi Devi vs Radha Devi Gupta (2025) 2 SCCC 271
Padma Sundara Rao vs State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 2 SCC 533
Guddi vs State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2002/2020)