[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 182/2026

Sanyam Lodha S/o Late Shri Prakash Raj Lodha, Aged About 59

Years, Resident Of Nagar Sethon Ki Haveli, Sheoganj, Sirohi,

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretariat,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Local Self Government Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director and Special Secretary, Local Self

Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. State Election Commission, Rajasthan Through Its

Secretary, Development Block, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. The State Election Commissioner, Rajasthan,

Development Block, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 170/2026

1. Giriraj Singh Devanda S/o Shri Sahaja Ram, Aged About

52 Years, R/o Village Nangal Kalan, Sub Tehsil

Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Nand Kishore Yadav S/o Shri Prabhati Lal Yadav, Aged

About 70 Years, R/o Mangrawali Dhani, Village

Dhodhsar, Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Laxmi Chand Choudhary S/o Shri Moti Ram Choudahry,

Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Bhutera, Tehsil

Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Suresh Kumar Bajiya S/o Shri Surajmal Bajiya, Aged

About 48 Years, R/o Dhani -Dediwali, Singod Kalan, Via-

Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Rajasthan

5. Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Surajmal A/s Mangla Ram

Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 172-Ka, Haninwal

Tejaji Ke Pass, Village Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu,

District Jaipur, Rajasthan,

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (2 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

6. Ramdev Choudhary S/o Shri Gidaram, Aged About 46

Years, R/o Badhawali, Village Dhodhsar, Tehsil Chomu,

District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Ram Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Ram, Aged About 35 Years,

R/o 96 Mukhya Abadi, Nangal Kalan, Tehsil Chomu,

District Jaipur. Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Cum

Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj

Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The District Collector, Jaipur, Collectorate Circle,

Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Returning Officer,

Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Election Commissioner, State Of Rajasthan, Ii

Floor Lokayukt Bhawan, Vaniki Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

----Respondents

D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 171/2026

Sanyam Lodha S/o Late Shri Prakash Raj Lodha, Aged About

59 Years, Resident Of Nagar Setho Ki Haveli, Sheoganj, Sirohi,

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Local Self Government Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director and Special Secretary, Local Self

Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. State Election Commission, Rajasthan Through Its

Secretary, Development Block, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. The State Election Commissioner, Rajasthan,

Development Block, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (3 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

For Applicant (s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG and Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma and Mr.

Anirudh Singh (In Writ Misc. Appl.

No.170/2026 and 171/2026)

Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Ram

(In Writ Misc. Appl. No.182/2026)

For Non-Applicant(s): Mr. Punit Singhvi

(In Writ Misc. Appl. No.182/2026 and

171/2026)

Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr.

Abhishek Singh Dewanda and Mr.

Shaurya Kaviya

(In Writ Misc. Appl. No.170/2026

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

1. Date of Conclusion of arguments :: 11.05.2026

2. Date on which judgment was reserved :: 11.05.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the

operative part is pronounced :: Full

4. Date of pronouncement :: 22.05.2026

Per : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, J.

1.D.B. Misc. Application No. 182/2026 by the State Election

Commission, Rajasthan; D.B. Misc. Application No. 170/2026 by

the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan; and

D.B. Misc. Application No. 171/2026 by Local Self Government

Department, Government of Rajasthan, have been filed with

common prayer, seeking extension of suitable time for holding and

completing the elections of Rural and Urban Local Bodies in the

State of Rajasthan.

2.In essence, it is contended that in spite of making all

possible efforts, owing to unavoidable circumstances, due

compliance of directions contained in para 224.7 of the judgment

dated 14.11.2025 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (4 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2025, Sheela Kumari vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. for conducting and completing the

elections of the Rural Local Bodies (RLBs) as well as the Urban

Local Bodies (ULBs) within the prescribed time period, could not

made and thus, respective respondent Departments and the State

Election Commission, Rajasthan have prayed for extension of the

time period.

3.Arguing on behalf of State of Rajasthan, learned Advocate

General - Mr. Rajendra Prasad, contended that while deciding a

batch of writ petitions challenging delimitation exercise

undertaken by the State of Rajasthan in relation to various Gram

Panchayats as well as Municipal Bodies, along with writ petitions

seeking directions for conduct of elections of RLBs and ULBs, this

Court, vide judgment dated 14.11.2025, directed the State

authorities to complete the exercise of delimitation on or before

31.12.2025 and thereafter to conduct and complete elections of all

local self-government bodies, i.e. Panchayats as well as

Municipalities, simultaneously, on or before 15.04.2026.

Extension of the time limit as prescribed in para 224.7 of the

judgment dated 14.11.2025 has been sought while narrating

various subsequent facts, explained in applications i.e. Writ Misc.

Application Nos. 170/2026 and 171/2026, which are briefly stated

as under :

3.1It is contended that, in pursuance of directions issued by this

Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2025, delimitation notifications

in relation to various Panchayats were issued on 19.11.2025,

20.11.2025 and 21.11.2025. Pursuant to said notifications,

several representations/objections were received and after

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (5 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

considering and deciding the same, the entire exercise of

delimitation of the Panchayati Raj Institutions was completed by

issuance of final notifications dated 28.12.2025 and 31.12.2025.

3.2After completion of said process of delimitation, directions

were issued on 25.01.2026 for publication of wards.

Simultaneously, the State Election Commission issued orders on

31.12.2025 for preparation of the voter lists of the Panchayati Raj

Institutions and the final voter lists were published on 25.02.2026.

3.3Learned Advocate General however contended that the

process of delimitation of the ULBs was affected due to

adjudication made in Part – C and directions contained in para

224.3 of the judgment dated 14.11.2025.

3.4It is stated that out of total 309 ULBs, delimitation of internal

wards was done / changed in relation to 113 ULBs, out of which

delimitation notifications in respect of 03 ULBs were challenged

and delimitation notifications pertaining to said 03 Municipal

Bodies were quashed and set aside vide judgment dated

14.11.2025. However, with regard to remaining 110 ULBs, since,

no specific order quashing the notifications was passed, the State

Authorities sought opinion regarding implementation of judgment

dated 14.11.2025 qua those 110 ULBs.

In that background, judgment dated 14.11.2025 was

challenged by State of Rajasthan by way of filing a Special Leave

Petition before Hon’ble the Supreme Court to the extent of

adjudication made in Part - C of judgment dated 14.11.2025 and

consequential directions contained in para 224.3 thereof.

In the meantime, Division Bench of this Court, while deciding

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 752/2026, Vikas Manch vs.

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (6 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide order dated 06.03.2026, upheld

said delimitation notifications, while considering the matter in the

light of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.

3.5It is stated that in view of said judgment dated 06.03.2026,

a communication dated 19.03.2026 was issued, directing

compliance of mandate of judgment dated 14.11.2025 in relation

to only 03 Municipal Bodies, which were subject matter of said

batch of writ petitions. Whereas, it has been decided and directed

to follow the mandate of judgment dated 06.03.2026 passed in

Vikas Manch (supra) in relation to the remaining 110 ULBs.

It is contended that, said issue was resolved only after

passing of judgment dated 06.03.2026 in the case of Vikas

Manch (supra) and thereafter, process for revision/declaration of

wards as well as publication of electoral rolls was initiated and in

relation thereto, a communication dated 24.03.2026 was issued

by the State Election Commission, Rajasthan.

3.6Learned Advocate General stated that, in the meantime,

various writ petitions were filed challenging the final delimitation

notifications in relation to RLBs and same were either decided or

stay applications were rejected. However, in some pending cases,

proposed elections are made subject to final outcome of said

petitions.

3.7It is thus contended that though process for delimitation

exercise, determination of wards as well as declaration of electoral

rolls in relation to RLBs are already completed; however, in view of

the reasons mentioned above, such process could not be

completed in relation to ULBs. It is submitted that State

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (7 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

authorities are now committed to complete the same without any

further delay.

3.8Learned Advocate General further submitted that another

significant aspect, which is yet to be completed and is causing

delay in finalisation of the process for conduct of elections is the

non-completion of process of determination of reservation for

Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

It is stated that as per Articles 243-D and 243-T of the

Constitution of India, State is under a constitutional obligation to

provide reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

and Other Backward Classes categories, for which corresponding

statutory provisions also exist in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,

1994 as well as in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

3.9Learned Advocate General stated that Hon’ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in (2021) 6 SCC 73 , has laid

down a triple test to be mandatorily complied with before

providing OBC reservation in local bodies. In the said judgment,

Hon’ble the Supreme Court, directed for setting up of a dedicated

Commission to conduct a contemporaneous empirical inquiry, for

applying said triple test qua all local bodies within the State.

3.10It is informed that in compliance of directions contained in

Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra), State of Rajasthan, vide order

dated 09.05.2025, has constituted a Commission and granted

three months time to complete the exercise required for applying

triple test as prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

It is stated that, for various reasons including the fact that

data provided by various authorities, including concerned

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (8 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

departments, to the said Commission was found to be erroneous,

the Commission sought extension of time for completing said

empirical inquiry and while being satisfied with the

reasons/justification seeking extension, the State Government

acceded to said request and vide order dated 21.08.2025

(Annexure A-19) extended the time upto 31.12.2025. Thereafter,

vide order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A-21) time was extended

up to 31.03.2026 and vide order dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure A-

26) further extension was granted up to 30.09.2026.

3.11It is stated at the Bar by learned Advocate General that

various communications have been exchanged between State

authorities, OBC Commission and Planning Department for

resolving the roadblocks coming in the way and to ensure that

said study is completed at the earliest in time-bound manner.

3.12While explaining all said facts, learned Advocate General

informed that elections of 397 ULBs as well as a large number of

RLBs would require approximately 1.25 lakh and 2.50 lakh

personnel respectively, which would include staff from the

Education as well as Police Departments.

Learned Advocate General stated that, looking to the

extreme heat conditions prevailing at present and upcoming rainy

season during the months of July to September, it would be

difficult for the State Government to conduct the elections during

said period.

It is further stated that since the time period for the OBC

Commission has been extended up to 30.09.2026, it would be in

the fitness of things to extend the time limit for conducting and

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (9 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

completing the elections of RLBs and ULBs only after final

determination of aspect of OBC reservation.

It is also stated that after receipt of report of OBC

Commission, the State Election Commission would require at least

three months to notify, conduct and complete the elections of

RLBs and ULBs, though simultaneously, but in a phased manner.

3.13Learned Advocate General stated that in view of the reasons

stated above, delay caused in complying with the directions

contained in para 224.7 of judgment dated 14.11.2025 is bona

fide, beyond the control of the State authorities and unavoidable;

however, there had been consistent efforts on the part of

respondent State to complete the same and all necessary steps in

this regard have been duly taken.

With these submissions, learned Advocate General requested

for extension of suitable time for conducting and completing the

elections of Local Bodies.

4.While arguing on behalf of State Election Commission,

learned counsel Mr. Punit Singhvi stated that, as a matter of fact,

there has been no delay on the part of State Election Commission

in complying with directions contained in judgment dated

14.11.2025.

4.1It is contended that duty of the State Election Commission is

to publish voter lists, declare election programme and impose

Model Code of Conduct; however, prior to the same, it is

responsibility of the State to complete the process of delimitation

of wards and to ensure compliance of statutory provisions relating

to reservation of seats.

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (10 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

4.2It is stated that since process of delimitation and exercise of

reservation of seats have not been finalised by respective

departments of the State of Rajasthan, it was not possible for the

Election Commission to initiate and complete election process

within time frame as directed by this Hon’ble Court in its judgment

dated 14.11.2025.

4.3It is contended that all the necessary steps which the State

Election Commission was required to take independently have

already been taken. Immediately upon completion of delimitation

exercise of Panchayats, process for issuance of electoral rolls was

completed by 25.02.2026. State Election Commission has also

entered into an MoU with the Election Commission of Madhya

Pradesh for procuring EVMs on a loan basis.

4.4It is further contended that after receipt of EVMs from the

Election Commission of India, process of FLC as well as directions

with regard to indelible ink and other relevant material necessary

for conducting elections, have already been completed by State

Election Commission.

4.5Counsel appearing for State Election Commission further

stated that various communications and reminders have also been

sent by State Election Commission for timely completion of the

exercise to be conducted by respective departments of the State

of Rajasthan, however, outcome is yet awaited.

It is stated that although process for revision of voter list

regarding 196 ULBs (which were not affected by the delimitation

process) has already been completed and after resolving all issues

with regard to other 113 ULBs, programme for revision of voter

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (11 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

list of the State Local Bodies was issued on 24.03.2026, which is

underway.

4.6With regard to exercise of OBC reservation which is stated to

be pending at the end of OBC Commission, it is contended that

although constitution of said Commission is as per directions of

Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Vikas Kishanrao Gawali

(supra), however, after passing of said judgment on 04.03.2021,

further directions were issued and reported in (2022) 12 SCC 795,

whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that elections to

local bodies are to be completed as per the directions contained in

earlier order even without providing reservations for OBC and

while notifying seats to be General seats.

4.7Reliance is also placed on the order passed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Ramesh Wagh vs The

State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: reported in (2022) 12 SCC

798, relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced as under:

“9. Insofar as providing reservation for Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the mandate of the

Constitution and statutory provision must be

followed; and insofar as Other Backward Classes,

compliance of triple test as predicated by this Court in

Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra must

be adhered to. Absent such compliance, no

reservation can be provided in the local bodies for

that category which may go for elections with

immediate effect in terms of this order.

10. As requested by the learned counsel for the State,

we place on record that all steps taken by the State

Election Commission and we may add even the State

Government, on the basis of the directions given in

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (12 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

terms of this order will be subject to the outcome of

these proceedings. We make it clear that until the

delimitation is done by the State Government in

terms of Amendment Act(s) of 2022, the State

Election Commission shall give effect to this order

also in respect of upcoming elections in

respect of local bodies which would become due by

efflux of time.”

5.On the other hand, counsel appearing for the petitioners has

seriously objected to the contentions raised on behalf of the State

of Rajasthan and stated that the reasons mentioned in the

applications are not justified and sufficient to extend the time limit

provided in the judgment dated 14.11.2025. It is stated that the

elections of ULBs as well as RLBs are due since January 2025 and

that this Court, while adopting a considerate approach, has

already extended the time period up to 15.04.2026, which ought

not to be extended any further.

5.1.It is reiterated that in view of the directions contained in the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul

Ramesh Wagh (supra), in the absence of the report from OBC

Commission, no reservation can be provided in the local bodies for

that category and the same shall be conducted while treating the

seats as General.

5.2.Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that reason

for extension based on prevailing weather conditions as put forth

by the State authorities, is wholly untenable and cannot be

accepted as a valid ground. It is stated that the constitutional

provision for holding elections to local bodies immediately upon

completion of their tenure is mandatory in nature and admits no

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (13 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

unnecessary delay or deferment on any flimsy ground. The said

mandate, it is argued, cannot be diluted or postponed on the basis

of seasonal or climatic conditions, which are recurring and have

been prevailing in the State of Rajasthan since time immemorial.

5.3.It is further submitted that such grounds are extraneous to

the constitutional requirement and cannot override the obligation

of the State to ensure timely conduct of elections in accordance

with law.

5.4Learned counsel for the petitioners seriously objected to the

contentions advanced by the learned Advocate General regarding

the subsisting tenure of the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads

and submitted that elections to the Panchayat Samities and Zila

Parishads are independent in nature and consequential to the

elections of the Gram Panchayats, which are invariably conducted

after completion of the elections to the Gram Panchayats.

Therefore, it is contended that elections of Rural Local Bodies, i.e.,

the Gram Panchayats, cannot be deferred merely on account of

the tenure of the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads.

5.5Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

present applications have been filed only with a view to avoid

timely compliance of the directions contained in the judgment

dated 14.11.2025 on extraneous consideration. Such conduct is

contemptuous in nature, and therefore, applications deserve to be

dismissed with costs.

6.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7.This Court is aware about constitutional mandate contained

in Article 243 – E (3) as well as 243 – U (3), which requires for

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (14 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

completion of election of RLB / ULB before expiry of its tenure.

However, while considering the peculiar facts of recent past of

State of Rajasthan as well as genuine difficulties faced by State

authorities in delimitation exercise and in consideration of

judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court for extending the time

limit for conduct of elections in exceptional cases, vide its

judgment dated 14.11.2025 had granted sufficient time to the

State authorities for completion of delimitation process and for

conduct of elections to the RLBs and ULBs. But the election

programme for the said elections has still not been issued despite

lapse of more than one month from the timeline fixed in the

judgment dated 14.11.2025.

7.1Before addressing to the submissions of the learned

Advocate General, it would be apposite to notice certain

judgments passed by the Supreme Court as placed before us. In

Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra), the Supreme Court observed

as under:

“9. Besides this inviolable quantitative limitation, the

State Authorities are obliged to fulfil other

preconditions before reserving seats for OBCs in the

local bodies. The foremost requirement is to collate

adequate materials or documents that could help in

identification of Backward Classes for the purpose of

reservation by conducting a contemporaneous

rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and

implications of backwardness in the local bodies

concerned through an independent dedicated

Commission established for that purpose. Thus, the

State legislations cannot simply provide uniform and

rigid quantum of reservation of seats for OBCs in the

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (15 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

local bodies across the State that too without a proper

enquiry into the nature and implications of

backwardness by an independent Commission about

the imperativeness of such reservation. Further, it

cannot be a static arrangement. It must be reviewed

from time to time so as not to violate the principle of

overbreadth of such reservation (which in itself is a

relative concept and is dynamic). Besides, it must be

confined only to the extent it is proportionate and

within the quantitative limitation as is predicated by the

Constitution Bench of this Court.”

In Suresh Mahajan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh &

Anr. (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 278/2022), the Supreme

Court while considering the similar issue of elections held as

under:

“The State Election Commission shall ensure that the

election programme is issued in respect of local bodies

where elections are overdue without any loss of time

keeping in mind the feasibility of conducting elections

owing to impending monsoon and as observed in the

case (SLP (C) No. 19756 of 2021) of State of

Maharashtra yesterday i.e., 17.05.2022.

Despite issuing such election programme, it would be

open to the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission

to modulate the schedule if and when occasion arises.

We also permit the State of Madhya Pradesh to notify

the reservation pattern local body wise as delineated in

the Reports of the dedicated Commission, to be

adhered to by the State Election Commission. That be

done within one week from today. The State Election

Commission shall issue election programme in respect

of concerned local bodies thereafter within one week.

The directions given in order dated 10.05.2022 stand

modified to the above extent. We reiterate that steps

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (16 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

taken by all concerned will be subject to the outcome

of this petition as already noted in the earlier order.

This application is disposed of accordingly.”

However, subsequently because the OBC Commission’s report was

received, the date was further extended.

7.2In matters relating to the Elections of Panchayats, in other

States, we find that on account of the aforesaid orders passed by

the Supreme Court the OBC Commission has been seeking time for

completing the task assigned to them. The State of Rajasthan too

had appointed the OBC Commission which was constituted on

09.05.2025, almost one year has expired but the Commission has

not been able to submit its report. On account of such delay in

submitting the report, we do not think that the elections should be

delayed for long as has been held by the Supreme Court in Rahul

Ramesh Wagh (supra). We also do not deem it appropriate to

await for the report of the OBC Commission and if there is delay

on their part, the Elections of the Panchayats cannot be allowed to

be delayed further. We had given the State Government time to

conduct the elections by April, month of May has already arrived.

7.3The submissions of the learned Advocate General of allowing

them to conduct elections in the month of November is found to

be without any basis. Excuses like rain and hot weather have no

place in State of Rajasthan, as there are no such extreme weather

conditions, which the citizens are not able to bear. The functioning

of the State Government or its Authorities do not stop on account

of weather conditions. Conducting of elections is a statutory as

well as onerous duty of the Government, therefore, this Court is

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (17 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

not inclined to accept the reasons advanced by the learned

Advocate General regarding the weather conditions prevailing in

the State of Rajasthan as well as the subsisting tenure of some

Panchayats Samities and Zila Parishads. The Election of the

Panchayat Samities is totally independent to the elections of this

Gram Panchayat and its tenure, constitutional mandate, therefore,

cannot be bypassed.

7.4We have noticed that the State has already conducted the

delimitation process of the Panchayats by 31.12.2025 and

electoral rolls have also been published by 25.02.2026, therefore,

there is no difficulty in conducting the Elections of the Panchayats.

7.5In the case of Urban Local Bodies while the process of

delimitation has taken further time, we are satisfied that the same

now stands resolved. Legal complications have also been sorted

out, therefore, the State Government should take all the steps to

conduct elections as soon as possible in Urban Local Bodies.

7.6As regards the extreme heat wave, we may consider the

same for the month of June this year but so far as rainy weather

is concerned, the rain fall in the Rajasthan is never so extreme to

disturb the day to day functioning. On the basis of the delay in

submitting of the OBC Commission’s report, we would be

governed by the view taken by the Supreme Court in Rahul

Ramesh Wagh (supra) and Suresh Mahajan (supra). We,

therefore, would not allow the lackadaisical approach of the

Commission to come in a way for conducting of Panchayat and

Urban Local Bodies Elections. However, taking into consideration

all the aspects as pointed out by the State Authorities, we direct

[2026:RJ-JP:20654-DB] (18 of 18) [WMAP-182/2026]

the State Election Commission to complete the exercise of

elections to all the local bodies including Gram Panchayats and

Municipalities by 31.07.2026.

7.7It is made clear that if there is further delay in process of

revision of electoral rolls, the responsibility would be of the

concerned Officers and we, therefore, direct that all the exercise

of delimitation of wards and revision of electoral rolls of the Urban

Local Bodies shall be completed on or before 20.06.2026 and the

elections process would be completed by 31.07.2026.

8.All the misc. applications are disposed of in view of the

directions as above.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ

praveen