JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 (Ann. 15) passed by District Collector, Jodhpur may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the respondent District Collector, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to redraw the lot for reservations of wards of Panchayat Samiti Aau in pursuance of the wards formed vide notification dated 28.01.2020 (Ann. 14).

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Village Krishan Nagar, which is a part of the newly created Panchayat Samiti, Aau.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department issued a Gazette Notification dated 15.11.2019, whereby some of the panchayat samitis, including the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, have been subjected to delimitation exercise. Learned counsel also submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap was a part of the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, and Village Santok Nagar is the part of Gram Panchayat, Suvap.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that another Notification was issued on 17.11.2019, whereby Panchayat Samiti, Bapini had been divided into two parts, while creating new Panchayat Samiti, Aau. Learned counsel also submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap had been kept as part of the Panchayat Samiti, Aau.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Additional District Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Phalodi, vide its communication dated 27.11.2019, had informed the District Collector, Jodhpur regarding the proposed wards, in relation to Panchayat Samiti, Aau and Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, which were formed, after deciding the respective objections. Learned counsel however, submitted that the list of the proposed wards, communicated vide the said communication dated 27.11.2019, had not been published by the District Collector, which is required as per relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short, 'the Rules of 1994').

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Ward No. 7 was comprising two gram panchayats, namely, Gram Panchayat, Suvap and Gram Panchayat, Kerala. Learned counsel further submitted that the Gram Panchayat, Suvap was having three villages, namely, Suvap, Fateh Nagar and Santokh Nagar.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the process of ward formation for the Panchayat Samiti, Bapini had been completed, as reflected in the aforementioned communication dated 27.11.2019 (Annex. 4).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court towards the Notification dated 01.12.2019 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, in which the respondents had again, while delimiting some of the gram panchayats, removed Village Santok Nagar from the Gram Panchayat, Suvap, and the said Village Santok Nagar had been included in Gram Panchayat, Isru. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that, after such delimitation, the Gram Panchayat Suvap was having two villages, namely, Suvap and Fateh Nagar, which is the part of Panchayat Samiti, Aau, and upon inclusion of Village Santok Nagar in Gram Panchayat, Isru, the said Gram Panchayat, was having three villages, namely, Isru, Karni Nagar, and Santok Nagar.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 09.12.2019 (Annexure-6) a communication was issued by the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj to all the District Collectors and Sub Divisional Officers, regarding the roster s