Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rahul Jain vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 November, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:51134-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18500/2024

1.       Rahul Jain S/o Shri Parasmal Jain, Aged About 41 Years,
         252, Near Sbbj Bank, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
2.       Gulab Singh Mahecha S/o Shri Madho Singh Mahecha,
         Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mallinath Colony, Bye Pass
         Road, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
3.       Roopa Ram S/o Shri Kesu Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
         Village Post Shergarh, District Jodhpur.
4.       Satta Ram Choudhary, Aged About 43 Years, Jakhado Ki
         Dhaniya, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
5.       Goma Ram Soni S/o Lalchand, Aged About 75 Years, Azad
         Chowk, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local
         Self Department, G-3, Residential Area, C- Scheme, Near
         Civil Line Cross, Jaipur
2.       Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
         Secretariat, Jaipur
3.       Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department,
         G-3, Residential Area, C- Scheme, Near Civil Line Cross,
         Jaipur
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     None present.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG.
                                   assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot.



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

                                     ORDER

26/11/2025

1. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel & Additional

Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, representing the

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:46:00 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51134-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-18500/2024]

respondents, submits 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

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:46:00 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51134-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-18500/2024]

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, creation of new ones, and changes in the very character of these institutions from rural to urban and vice-versa.

222. Consequently, the State contends that holding elections for the existing local bodies, whose form, nature, and territorial limits are subject to imminent and substantial change, would be a futile and wasteful exercise. It is argued that such elections would be for a very brief term and would squander significant public funds and administrative resources. Furthermore, any election would have to be preceded by a fresh delimitation of wards, revision of electoral rolls and determination of reservations for various categories, including for OBCs, for which an independent commission is also being constituted as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The State submits that this entire reorganisation is being conducted in the larger public interest to strengthen these institutions financially and functionally, and it is committed to holding the elections expeditiously as soon as this bona fide exercise is completed.

223. Having perused the detailed contentions and the plethora of documents submitted by the respondent-State, this Court finds merit in the justification provided for the inability to adhere to the statutory election schedule. The decision to undertake a complete reorganisation of local bodies is a significant policy matter falling within the executive domain. The series of actions taken, from the formation of high-level committees to the issuance of statutory notifications and timelines for delimitation, demonstrates that the State is not merely seeking to postpone elections indefinitely but is actively engaged in a complex, large- scale administrative restructuring. The reasoning that it would be contrary to public interest to expend vast resources on elections for institutions that may cease to exist or be fundamentally altered in the near future is rational and persuasive. The underlying objective, particularly holding the elections simultaneously, represents a futuristic and economically prudent approach. Such a synchronized electoral cycle may result in substantial savings of public funds, minimization of administrative stasis caused by the recurrent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, and the optimal deployment of state machinery.

Thus, this Court concludes that exercise of the State appears to be bona fide and aimed at achieving long-term systemic improvements in local self-governance, however, looking to the constitutional mandate, this Court deems it proper to issue appropriate directions to the State Government to hold the elections of the Local Self Institutions without any unnecessary delay and to conduct and conclude the same in a time bound manner.

FINAL DIRECTIONS

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:46:00 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51134-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-18500/2024]

224.1 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-A of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging the final notifications issued under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 as well as Section 101 of the Act of 1994, are dismissed.

224.2 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-B of the judgment, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.831/2025 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dhanna Ram and Ors.) and other special appeals challenging the interim order dated 23.05.2025 to the extent of Para 7 & 8 of the same, are allowed.

All the writ petitions challenging the process of delimitation initiated in pursuance of the notices issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, are dismissed.

It is directed that the concerned District Collectors shall send the proposal for delimitation to the state Government and the three members high-level committee constituted for the purpose of examining the same, shall take final decision upon the proposals for delimitation so sent by the concerned District Collectors in an objective manner. The State Government shall complete the entire exercise of delimitation on or before 31.12.2025.

224.3 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-C of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging the process of delimitation/change of boundaries of the municipal wards in absence of change of census or change in the number of wards or change in the territorial boundaries of the municipality, are allowed. The respondents are directed not to effect any change in the internal boundaries of the municipal wards in such cases.

Consequently, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1005/2025 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Narayan Singh Solanki & Ors.) filed for challenging the interim order dated 11.06.2025, is hereby dismissed.

224.4 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-D of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging removal of Panchayat Samiti Member / Pradhan, on account of delimitation of respective areas / wards, are hereby dismissed.

224.5 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-E of the judgment, the writ petitions relating to appointment of the administrator, are dismissed.

224.6 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-F of the judgment, the writ petitions praying for fixing/nominating the village headquarter are dismissed.

224.7 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-G of the judgment, D. B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.4686/2025 [Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan] as well as D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/2025 (Giriraj Singh Devanda vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) praying for a direction for holding the elections of Municipality or Panchayati Raj Institutions,

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:46:00 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51134-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-18500/2024]

respectively, are disposed of with a direction to the State Government that after completing the delimitation exercise, elections of all the Local Self Bodies i.e. Panchayats as well as Municipality, shall immediately be conducted simultaneously and the entire exercise for such elections shall be completed on or before 15.04.2026.

224.8 To promote the spirit of 'Save Paper - Save Environment', the Registry of this Court is directed that, while placing a copy of this judgment in concerned files as well as while processing applications for issuance of certified copies of this judgment pertaining to any specific writ petition or special appeal, it shall issue a certified copy comprising the first page of the judgment, the relevant page showing the cause title of the respective writ petition/special appeal, and the full text of the judgment beginning from Page No.288 of this judgment.