[2025:RJ-JD:52940-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11054/2023 Ganshyam Choudhary S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Village Hemliyawas Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Marwar Junction, District Pali (Aadhar No. 5676 7969 9695).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Director, Department Of Local-Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. State Election Commissioner, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Chief Election Officer.

4. District Election Officer, Pali.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Board Marwar Junction, District Pali.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Av. & AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

06/12/2025

1. Learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General informs the Court in the matter of Sheela Kumari Vs. Jagdish Shekhawat & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025 and other connected matters, decided on 14.11.2025, it has been directed by this Court that the elections shall be held on or before

15.04.2026. The relevant paragraphs of the said 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 Municipalities. The State's argument is that this comprehensive overhaul will result in large-scale alteration of territorial jurisdictions, dissolution of some existing bodies,