[2025:RJ-JD:52826-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17599/2025

1. Mahipal S/o Dariyav Singh Chauhan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Fateh-Nagar-Ka-Kheda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

2. Onkar Singh Chouhan S/o Rai Singh Chauhan, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Fateh-Nagar-Ka-Kheda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

3. Kalu Ram Gurjar S/o Hari Chand Gurjar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Fateh-Nagar-Ka-Kheda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. The District Collector, Rajsamand, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rajsamand, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

4. The Tehsildar, Rajsamand, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Singhvi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti, for Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

06/12/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res- integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Sheela Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025) and other connected writ petitions on 14.11.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"219. While considering the rival submissions made at Bar, it is clear that even while taking into account the Constitutional mandate of holding the election before the expiry of term of local bodies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases while taking note of exceptional circumstances, has permitted the postponement of the elections. Pendency of the Delimitation process is also considered as one such exceptional circumstance and while considering the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court has issued direction to first complete the process of Delimitation and then to hold the elections. We are in agreement with the contention of the learned Advocate General that the facts of the present case also akin to the judgments as relied upon on behalf of the State and the reason for issuing the notification for appointment of Administrator / postponement of election in the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary.

220. The respondent-State, while justifying its action of deferment of elections to various Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies, has primarily contended that the State has undertaken a massive and complex exercise for the complete reorganisation and restructuring of these local self-governing bodies across the entire State. It is submitted that this exercise was necessitated by a number of factors, including the haphazard creation and elevation of municipalities by the previous government without ensuring their financial viability, and the administrative and financial strain caused by staggered election cycles, a situation exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The State has highlighted its policy decision, reflected in the budget presented on 10.07.2024, to constitute a High- Level Committee to recommend the restructuring and delimitation of these bodies and to examine the feasibility of a ‘One State, One Election’ model to save public resources.

221. The record indicates that the State Government has taken concrete steps to actualize this policy. A series of meetings of the Cabinet Sub-Committees and a High-Level Expert Committee were held to review the creation of new districts, divisions and the overall structure of rural and urban local bodies. Pursuant to these recommendations, the State has not only abolished certain newly created districts but has also issued detailed guidelines and timelines for the reconstitution and delimitation of Village Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads and Municipalit