ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.6) whereby an Administrator has been sought to be appointed qua the newly constituted Gram Panchayat Chawadia. 2. The facts are that vide notification dated 31.05.2022, a new municipality namely ‘Marwar Junction’ was constituted and one village namely Suryanagar from Gram Panchayat Chawadia was included in the said newly constituted municipality. Earlier, Gram Panchayat Chawadia comprised of four villages out of which one was included in the newly constituted municipality. Therefore, Gram Panchayat Chawadia remained with three villages namely, Chawadia, Jogdawas and Bithora Khurd and hence, Gram Panchayat Chawadia was reconstituted with the same name. For the said purpose, notification dated 25.07.2023 was issued. 3. After the re-constitution of Gram Panchayat Chawadia vide notification dated 25.07.2023, the earlier members of the Gram Panchayat continued to function. However, after a period of almost one year, vide notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.6), the Development Officer of Gram Panchayat Chawadia has been sought to be appointed as an Administrator till the election of representatives of the newly constituted Gram Panchayat and their first meeting. It is the said notification dated 29.07.2024 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right sought to be exercised while passing the notification dated 29.07.2024, has been reflected to be in terms of Sections 95 & 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1994’). However, none of the said provisions prescribe for appointment of an Administrator in cases of reconstitution of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the notifications dated 25.07.2023 as well as 29.07.2024 makes it clear that Gram Panchayat Chawadia has been reconstituted with the same name. Gram Panchayat Chawadia was never dissolved which is a sine qua non for application of provisions of Section 101 of the Act of 1994. 5. Learned counsel submits that the Gram Panchayat having not been dissolved, the powers under Section 101(1) of the Act of 1994 could not have been exercised by the State Authorities. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, had the intention of the State Authorities been to constitute a new body, the elections for the said purpose within a period of six months of the notification dated 25.07.2023 ought to have been conducted. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, had the intention of the State Authorities been to constitute a new body, the elections for the said purpose within a period of six months of the notification dated 25.07.2023 ought to have been conducted. The same having not been conducted within the said time period, an Administrator, after the said time having lapsed, could not have been appointed. He submits that the elections, whatsoever, have not even been notified till date and therefore, the intention of State Authorities is somehow to restrain the elected representatives from functioning. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department submits that appointment of an Administrator is a natural consequence of the existing Panchayat having been dissolved. He submits that in terms of Section 95 of the Act of 1994, all the powers and duties of a Panchayati Raj Institution to be exercised and performed by an Administrator is the first consequence of a Panchayati Raj Institution having been dissolved under the Act of 1994. Further, in terms of Proviso to Section 101(2), where the Panchayat stands dissolved, appointment of an Administrator is a must. Therefore, the notification dated 29.07.2024 is perfectly valid and in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1994. 7. In support of his submissions, learned AAG relied upon a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Mund & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 112 = 2010 (1) RLW (Raj.) 760. 8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The issue which arises is - Whether the present is a case of dissolution of the Gram Panchayat or of reconstitution? Notification dated 25.07.2023 mentions the new Panchayat Chawadia as ^^iquxZfBr@iquflZekafdr@uol`ftr xzke iapk;r dk uke** . Meaning thereby, the notification itself refers the present to be a reconstituted/re-demarcated/newly constituted Gram Panchayat. The said notification, or for that matter, even the notification dated 29.07.2024 does not talk of the Panchayat Samiti been dissolved. What has been done in the present matter is that out of the existing Gram Panchayat Chawadia, one village has been excluded and included in the newly constituted municipality Marwar Junction. The said notification, or for that matter, even the notification dated 29.07.2024 does not talk of the Panchayat Samiti been dissolved. What has been done in the present matter is that out of the existing Gram Panchayat Chawadia, one village has been excluded and included in the newly constituted municipality Marwar Junction. Therefore, the said action clearly is covered by Section 101 (1)(d) of the Act of 1994 which prescribes the said condition as under : "101. Alteration in the limits of a Panchayati Raj Institution- (1) The State Government may, at any time, after one month's notice published in the prescribed manner either on its own motion or at the request made in this behalf, and by notification in the Official Gazette- (a) declare the whole or a part of any local area included within the limits of a Municipality to be a Panchayat Circle; or (b) include in a Panchayat Circle any such local area or a part thereof or, as the case may be, any local area included within the limits of another Panchayat Circle; or (c) otherwise alter the limits of a Panchayat Circle by amalgamating one Panchayat Circle into another or by splitting up a Panchayat Circle into two or more Panchayat Circles; or (d) exclude the whole or a part of any local area from a Panchayat Circle, whether on its ceasing to be a rural area or, as the case may be, for its being included within the limits of another Panchayat Circle." 10. The consequent action in pursuance to any action taken under Section 101 (1) of the Act of 1994 has been prescribed in Section 101 (2) of the Act of 1994. Section 101 (2) of the Act of 1994 prescribes as under : "101. The consequent action in pursuance to any action taken under Section 101 (1) of the Act of 1994 has been prescribed in Section 101 (2) of the Act of 1994. Section 101 (2) of the Act of 1994 prescribes as under : "101. Alteration in the limits of a Panchayati Raj Institution- (2) Upon any action being taken under Sub-Section (1), the State Government shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, by an order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for the following, namely: - (a) that, in a case falling under Clause (a) of that Sub-section, a Panchayat shall be established for the local area declared to be a Panchayat Circle; or (b) that, in a case falling under Clause (b) of that Sub-section, the election of the members for the additional local area shall be held; or (c) that, in a case falling under Clause (c) of that Sub-section the existing Panchayats shall stand dissolved and new Panchayats shall be constituted -in accordance with the provisions of this Act within a period of six months from the appointed day; or (d) that, in a case falling under Clause (d), the Panchayat shall stand dissolved or, as the case may be, the members who, in the opinion of the State Government, represent the local area excluded from the Panchayat Circle shall stand removed: Provided that for so long as a Panchayat or a new Panchayat is not established under Clause (a) or, as the case may be, under Clause (c), all powers and duties of the Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by such administrator as the State Government may appoint in this behalf: Provided further that no act of a Panchayat shall be deemed invalid by reason of any vacancy of the members referred to in Clause (b).” 11. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the Proviso, wherein appointment of an Administrator has been prescribed, refers only to Clause (a) and (c) of Section 101(1) of the Act of 1994. Meaning thereby, if any action is taken in terms of Section 101(1)(a) and (c), Proviso to Section 101(2) shall apply. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the Proviso, wherein appointment of an Administrator has been prescribed, refers only to Clause (a) and (c) of Section 101(1) of the Act of 1994. Meaning thereby, if any action is taken in terms of Section 101(1)(a) and (c), Proviso to Section 101(2) shall apply. That is to say, in cases where whole or any part of a local area of a municipality is included in a Panchayat Circle or in cases where the limits of a Panchayat Circle are altered by amalgamating one Panchayat Circle into another or by splitting up a Panchayat Circle into two or more Panchayat Circles; all powers and duties of a Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by such Administrator as appointed by the State Government till the period a Panchayat or new Panchayat is established in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1994. 12. Evidently, the present is not a case governed by Section 101(1)(a) & (c) of the Act of 1994. The present would definitely be governed by Section 101(1)(d) of the Act of 1994 and hence the Proviso above referred would not even apply. 13. So far as any action taken in terms of Section 101(1)(d) of the Act of 1994 is concerned, it definitely would be governed by Section 101(2)(d) which provides that the members who represent the local area excluded from the Panchayat Circle, shall stand removed. Meaning thereby, the representatives pertaining to one village Suryanagar, excluded from the existing Gram Panchayat Chawadia, if any, could only have been removed. However, the complete Gram Panchayat having not been dissolved; and a new Gram Panchayat having already been reconstituted with the same name, no action, whatsoever, in terms of the Proviso was even required. 14. Further, even if, it is assumed that an Administrator was to be appointed, the same was to be appointed only in cases where the new Panchayat was not constituted. Herein, it is clear on record that vide notification dated 25.07.2023, Gram Panchayat Chawadia had already been reconstituted. Therefore, it is not even the case of a Panchayat having not been constituted, qua which, the right in terms of the Proviso to Section 101 (2) was even required to be exercised. 15. Herein, it is clear on record that vide notification dated 25.07.2023, Gram Panchayat Chawadia had already been reconstituted. Therefore, it is not even the case of a Panchayat having not been constituted, qua which, the right in terms of the Proviso to Section 101 (2) was even required to be exercised. 15. So far as the ratio laid down in the case of Tulsi Ram Mund (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the position of law that an Administrator has to be appointed by the State Government where a Panchayat is established in terms of Clause (a) of sub Section (1) of Section 101 of the Act of 1994 or in terms of Clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 101 of the Act of 1994. However, as observed above, the present is not a case governed by any of these two provisions and hence, the said ratio would also not apply to the present matter. 16. In view of the above analysis, notification dated 29.07.2024 (Annex.6) being totally in excess of jurisdiction and dehors the provisions of the Act of 1994, cannot be affirmed and is hence, quashed and set aside. 17. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. 18. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.