Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging state govt’s decision to merge several gram panchayats into municipal bodies across the state. It ruled that the govt’s action under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution was largely legislative and a policy exercise, and there was a limited scope for judicial interference.The petitions filed by different village panchayats questioned notifications issued by the urban development and urban housing department between 2023 and 2025, merging various village panchayats into municipalities like Godhra, Shehara, Dabhoi, Kalol, Modasa and municipal corporations of Gandhidham, and Mehsana.Petitioners argued that the state govt failed to meaningfully apply constitutional factors listed in Article 243Q(2)of the Constitution — population, density, revenue for local administration, non-agricultural employment, and economic importance — claiming the process was mechanical, arbitrary, and unsupported by uniform benchmarks.
CJP Jantar Mantar Protest Updates
Several petitioners also alleged absence of meaningful consultation, disputed panchayat resolutions indicating consent, and raised issues involving tribal protections and land safeguards.The state govt maintained that Article 243Q(2) notifications are legislative in character and did not require consent, hearings, or mandatory consultation. It also contended that the Constitution permits flexible consideration of factors through the phrase “or such other factors as he may deem fit,” and that materials in official files showed relevant inputs from municipal officers, collectors, and regional commissioners.The court examined the records and said that the proposal for expansion of the municipal limits underwent consideration at various administrative levels before the final decision was taken.“Reports and opinions were called for from the concerned collectors, mamlatdars, chief officers, regional commissioners, directorate of municipalities and other competent authorities. The authorities examined village-wise data relating to population, density of population, extent of urbanisation, projected urban growth, revenue generation, economic significance, geographical proximity, availability of civic infrastructure and other relevant constitutional factors before making their respective recommendations,” the court order stated.It further said, “The original files further indicate that the proposal was processed through the established administrative hierarchy and ultimately placed before the competent constitutional authority for approval. The decision, therefore, cannot be characterised as arbitrary, mechanical or unsupported by relevant material. On the contrary, the record reflects a comprehensive and structured decision making process involving due deliberation at every stage.”Since the elections in the municipal bodies were over and councillors were elected, HC didn’t think it fit to disturb the bodies at this stage. If the notifications are tinkered with, HC said, “The inevitable consequence would be the creation of an administrative vacuum, uncertainty in civic administration and avoidable disruption of public governance. Such consequences would be wholly disproportionate to the relief sought and would not subserve the larger public interest.“
