MAHIMA CHOUDHARY vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:55836]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27808/2026
CNR: RJHC011152912026 | URN: CW / 48207U / 2026
Mahima Choudhary D/o Shri Bhairu Singh Choudhary, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Chainpura, Bhaniyana, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. State Election Commission, Rajasthan, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur.
3. District Election Officer (Panchayat) / District Collector,
Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.
4. Electoral Registration Officer (Panchayat) / Sub-Divisional
Officer, Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar/assistant Electoral Registration Officer
(Panchayat), Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
6. Enumerator (Praganak), Gram Panchayat Chainpura,
Panchayat Samiti Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
7. Enumerator (Praganak), Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana,
Panchayat Samiti Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani assisted by
Ms. Swati Shekhar
Mr. Chinmay Shekhar Kotwani
Mr. Gaurav Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala, AAAG for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
14/11/2026
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(2 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner assailing
the order dated 29.10.2026, whereby the application preferred by
her seeking transfer of her name to Bhaniyana has been rejected,
as also the subsequent order dated 05.11.2026 passed by
respondent No.3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules,
1994, has also been rejected.
2. The concise facts of the case are that the petitioner is
aggrieved by the rejection of her claim seeking transfer of her
name from the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Chainpura to
Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana. During the process of
preparation/revision of electoral rolls for the Panchayati Raj
General Elections, 2026, the petitioner’s name was reflected in the
electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Chainpura, Ward No. 04, despite
her claim of being ordinarily resident at Bhaniyana. Accordingly,
she submitted an objection dated 07.02.2026 seeking shifting of
her electoral entry to Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana.
2.1 Pursuant thereto, a field verification was conducted by the
concerned authorities and a report dated 14.02.2026 was
forwarded by the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer
(Panchayat)/Tehsildar, Bhaniyana, to the Electoral Registration
Officer. In the said report, the petitioner’s name finds mention at
Serial No. 29, wherein it was noticed that she had been residing in
the newly constructed residential house of her father for
approximately three years; however, the same was opined to be
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(3 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
temporary in nature on account of her studies. Despite the
aforesaid verification, the petitioner’s name was not transferred to
Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana.
2.2 Subsequently, upon a communication dated 28.09.2026
issued by the Electoral Registration Officer seeking fresh physical
verification, the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, vide
communication dated 30.09.2026, declined the petitioner’s
request for shifting her name. The petitioner asserts that she has,
for all practical purposes, shifted to and is residing at Bhaniyana,
which is also reflected in the revenue records, Jamabandis and
electricity bills placed on record.
2.3 The petitioner, having received no favourable decision on her
claim, initially approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 25021/2026, which came to be rejected vide order
dated 28.10.2026. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred a special
appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which, vide order
dated 30.10.2026, disposed of the appeal with a direction to the
respondents to decide the petitioner’s claim on the same day and
pass an appropriate order on her pending application, if not
already decided. It is alleged that, despite the aforesaid direction,
the respondents did not bring to the notice of the Division Bench
that the petitioner’s claim had purportedly already been rejected
vide order dated 29.10.2026. The petitioner alleges that the said
order is ante-dated and was subsequently brought into existence
to circumvent the directions issued by the Division Bench.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(4 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
2.4 It is further contended that when the petitioner approached
the Electoral Registration Officer on 30.10.2026 with a
representation in compliance with the directions of the Division
Bench, the same was not accepted, compelling her to submit it
before the District Collector at about 8:00 PM on the same day.
Thereafter, on 31.10.2026, she was informed that her claim had
already been rejected vide order dated 29.10.2026.
2.5 Being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the petitioner
preferred an appeal under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
(Election) Rules, 1994, before respondent No. 3. However, the said
appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 05.11.2026,
primarily on the ground that the election process had commenced
and, in view of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1994, no alteration could
thereafter be made in the electoral roll, without examining the
merits of the petitioner’s claim.
2.6 The petitioner further contends that the copy of the appellate
order was supplied to her only on 12.11.2026. It is also her case
that the issue concerning the scope of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis Article 243-O of the
Constitution, as well as the applicability of the relevant provisions
of the Rules of 1994, already stands considered by this Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694/2015, Surta Rani v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
2.7 The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court assailing
the orders dated 29.10.2026 and 05.11.2026, particularly when
the elections of Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana are scheduled to be
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(5 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
held on 16.11.2026 and the last date for filing nominations is
15.11.2026, contending that the impugned orders have deprived
her of the opportunity to exercise her franchise and participate in
the electoral process.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned orders dated 29.10.2026 and 05.11.2026 have been
passed arbitrarily, without proper appreciation of the material
available on record and in violation of Section 18 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. It was contended that the petitioner’s
claim for shifting her electoral entry from Gram Panchayat
Chainpura to Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana was supported by the
field verification report dated 14.02.2026, which recorded her
residence at Bhaniyana for approximately three years. Learned
counsel argued that the respondents failed to undertake a
comprehensive assessment of her ordinary residence and
disregarded their own verification report without assigning cogent
reasons. It was further contended that the claim was rejected
belatedly, immediately before publication of the election
notification, thereby depriving the petitioner of her right to
participate in the ensuing Panchayat elections. Reliance was also
placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Surta Rani’s
case (supra) to contend that the bar under Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India would not operate in the facts of the present
case. It was, thus, argued that the impugned orders suffer from
arbitrariness, non-application of mind and violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(6 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the
respondents be directed to consider the petitioner’s claim in
accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant to Additional Advocate General
(AAAG) appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the
present writ petition is not maintainable, as the Division Bench of
this Court, in several matters, has consistently declined to
interfere with the electoral process once the same has
commenced. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the orders
dated 18.10.2026 passed in Manoj Kumar Godara v. State (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 26293/2026), 15.10.2026 passed in Kanti
Lal v. State (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1237/2026) and
27.10.2026 passed in Pawan v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
24025/2026). It was further contended that the objections raised
by the petitioner had already been duly examined by the
competent authorities, as is evident from the findings recorded by
the Tehsildar in the communication dated 14.02.2026. Learned
AAAG further submitted that the election process has already
commenced and the public notice under Rule 23 and Rule 58 of
the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, was issued
on 31.10.2026. In view of the express embargo contained in Rule
21-A of the Rules of 1994, no amendment, transposition or
deletion of any entry in the electoral roll, nor any direction for
inclusion of a name, can be made after issuance of the aforesaid
public notice until completion of the elections. Accordingly, it was
argued that the relief sought by the petitioner is barred by the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(7 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
statutory prohibition and the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the
material available on record and considered the statutory scheme
governing preparation, correction and final publication of electoral
rolls under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994,
this Court is of the view that the controversy involved in the
present matter requires consideration in the backdrop of the
statutory obligation cast upon the Electoral Registration Officer
and the consequences flowing from non-discharge of such
obligation within the prescribed framework.
5.1 The facts, as borne out from the record, reveal that the
petitioner submitted her claim for shifting her electoral entry from
Gram Panchayat Chainpura to Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana on
07.02.2026. The respondents thereafter undertook a physical
verification, and a report dated 14.02.2026 was also prepared,
recording the petitioner’s existing electoral entry, her proposed
place of registration and her residence at the newly constructed
residential premises of her father for approximately three years.
Thus, the claim was not one which remained unsupported by any
material or was raised for the first time at the threshold of the
election. Rather, the matter had already entered the statutory
process of verification and consideration by the competent
authority.
5.2 What emerges from the sequence of events is that despite
the availability of the aforesaid material and the pendency of the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(8 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
petitioner’s claim before the competent authority, the proceedings
were not brought to their logical conclusion within the relevant
period. The claim came to be rejected only on 29.10.2026,
whereas the appellate authority proceeded to reject the
petitioner’s appeal on 05.11.2026. The question, therefore, is not
merely whether an electoral entry can be altered after
commencement of the election process, but whether the
respondents can be permitted to rely upon the consequence of
their own failure to discharge a statutory obligation in time, to
defeat a claim which had already been initiated and was awaiting
determination.
6. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apposite
to advert to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.
Statutory scheme and its interpretation
6.1 Rule 13 of the Rules of 1994 provides the mechanism for
preferring claims and objections by a person whose name has not
been entered in the electoral roll or whose name has been entered
at an incorrect place or with incorrect particulars.
6.2 Rule 14, in turn, casts an obligation upon the Electoral
Registration Officer to undertake a summary enquiry into such
claims and objections, afford the requisite opportunity of hearing
and record a decision thereon. The statutory scheme, therefore,
does not envisage a mere mechanical disposal of the claim; rather,
it contemplates an effective consideration of the material placed
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(9 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
before the competent authority and a decision founded upon the
relevant facts.
6.3 Rule 15 deals with inclusion of names inadvertently omitted
during preparation of the electoral roll, whereas Rule 16 provides
for deletion of names of deceased persons and persons who have
ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily resident in the concerned ward
or constituency.
6.4 A conjoint reading of Rules 13 to 16 makes it abundantly
clear that the preparation of an electoral roll is not an empty
procedural formality, but a statutory exercise intended to ensure
that the roll reflects the correct electoral particulars of eligible
persons. The significance of Rule 17 assumes importance in the
present controversy. Under sub-rule (1), the Electoral Registration
Officer is required to thereafter prepare a list of amendments to
give effect to the decisions taken under Rules 14, 15 and 16 and
publish the roll along with such list of amendments.
6.5 The expression “thereafter” employed by the rule-making
authority is not without significance. It indicates a definite
sequence of statutory events, namely, consideration and
adjudication of claims and objections, preparation of amendments
in consequence thereof and, thereafter, publication of the electoral
roll along with the amendments. These stages cannot be read in
isolation or divorced from one another.
6.6 The word “thereafter” necessarily carries with it the
implication that the preceding statutory exercise must first be
undertaken before the subsequent stage is reached. If the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(10 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
adjudication contemplated under Rule 14 is not undertaken, the
consequential exercise contemplated under Rule 17 cannot be
treated as having been completed in its true statutory sense in
relation to the pending claim. The sequence prescribed by the
Rules has to be respected in its entirety and cannot be reduced to
a mere formality.
6.7 Equally significant is the expression “if any” occurring in Rule
17(3). The same has to be understood in the context of the
statutory stage at which the Electoral Registration Officer is
required to prepare and publish the list of amendments. It cannot
be interpreted to mean that the authority may indefinitely
postpone consideration of a claim and, at a subsequent stage,
take shelter behind the fact that the list of amendments has
already been published or that the election process has
commenced. The expression does not confer an unfettered
discretion upon the authority to disregard claims which were duly
instituted and were awaiting adjudication within the prescribed
statutory framework.
6.8 Rule 18 provides for the duration of an electoral roll, whereas
Rule 19 contemplates its revision, either intensively or summarily,
in accordance with the directions of the State Election
Commission. These provisions further demonstrate that
preparation and revision of electoral rolls constitute a continuing
statutory exercise and are not confined exclusively to the period
immediately preceding a particular election.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(11 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
6.9 Rule 20 assumes significance inasmuch as it empowers the
Electoral Registration Officer, upon being satisfied after such
enquiry as may be considered necessary, to amend, transpose or
delete an entry in the electoral roll, including where a person has
changed his place of ordinary residence. Sub-rule (2) thereof
further enables a person whose name is not included in the
electoral roll of a particular ward or constituency to apply for
inclusion of his name. Rule 21 provides an appellate remedy
against orders passed under Rules 14 and 20.
6.10 At the same time, Rule 21-A imposes a restriction upon
amendment, transposition or deletion of entries and upon issuance
of directions for inclusion of names under Rules 20 and 21 after
issuance of the public notice under Rule 23 or Rule 58, as the case
may be, and until completion of the elections. The said restriction
undoubtedly has to be respected; however, its interpretation
cannot be divorced from the circumstances in which the claim was
instituted and the stage at which the competent authority was
required to discharge its statutory obligation.
Application of the statutory scheme to the facts
7. After a bare perusal of the scheme aforementioned when the
facts of the case are examined, it is revealing that as per Rule 13
of the Rules, the authorities invited objections of the public and in
accordance with that, the petitioner had submitted an application/
claim/objection dated 07.02.2026 well within the prescribed
period. The application above was processed and an inquiry was
conducted as it is reflecting from the report dated 14.02.2026. As
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(12 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
a matter of fact, no adjudication of the above application was ever
done by the respondents. Now the plea which has been taken
today and interestingly which was not taken before the Division
Bench [SAW 1299/2026] in the first round of litigation that the
objection of the petitioner had been decided on 29.10.2026 and
therefore the election process was hampered, cannot be sustained
or countenanced because the decision on 29.10.2026 was taken
on subsequent application dated 20.09.2026 however, the
objection dated 07.02.2026 remained undecided till now. As per
the governing Rules, only after disposal of the objection and its
communication to the concern, further process of preparation of
final list should be undertaken.
7.1 The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order above was merged
into the order dated 30.10.2026 of the Division Bench and this
Court records that the direction given by the Division Bench have
not been followed up stricto sensu rather efforts have been made
to defeat the very order by contending that the representation had
been decided on 29.10.2026. If it is so, then why the fact was not
brought to the notice of the Division Bench on 30.10.2026.
secondly, the instance of making adjudication of objection of the
petitioner on 29.10.2026 is not in accordance with the mandate of
Rule 13 and 14 of the Rules because her application dated
07.02.2026 had not been decided prior to completion and
publication of final list and even till now. For ready reference, the
relevant operative part of the order is reproduced herein below:-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(13 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
"8. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal Writ is
disposed of. The respondents are directed to decide
the claim of the appellant today itself i.e. on
30.10.2026, and pass a necessary order on the
pending application, if not already decided . An
appropriate decision shall be taken after considering all
the material placed by the appellant before the
concerned authorities. In the event the case of the
appellant is considered for transpositions, necessary
corrections shall be made to the electoral rolls today
itself i.e. 30.10.2026, and she shall be allowed to
participate in the election."
7.2 The term, "if not already decided" as mentioned by the
Division Bench above would in my humble understanding would be
that the objection had been decided in accordance with Rules 13
and 14 within prescribed period but surely not at a subsequent
stage just to defeat the cause of the petitioner or to disentitle her
to take the shelter of the Court.
8. In the present matter, the petitioner had approached the
competent authority much prior to the commencement of the
election process. Her application was not an attempt to introduce
a fresh claim after issuance of the election notification. The
respondents had themselves initiated the process of verification,
obtained the relevant factual material and forwarded the report for
consideration at the competent level. Thus, the obligation to take
the proceedings to their logical conclusion had already arisen.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents
cannot be permitted to remain inactive when the petitioner’s claim
was pending consideration and thereafter seek to justify such
inaction by placing reliance upon the subsequent commencement
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(14 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
of the election process. The statutory restriction under Rule 21-A
cannot be employed as an instrument to confer an advantage
upon an authority which has itself failed to discharge its obligation
at the appropriate stage. Otherwise, an authority may, by simply
withholding a decision upon a duly instituted claim, render the
statutory remedy illusory and thereafter defeat the very claim by
relying upon the intervening commencement of elections.
8.1 The principle that no person can be permitted to take
advantage of his own wrong is well recognised in law. In this
regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
reported in 2007 (11) SCC 447 , wherein the principle against
permitting a party to derive benefit from its own wrongful conduct
has been recognised. The well recognized Latin maxim
'Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet' (No party can take
undue advantage of his own wrong) has been discussed in its true
form.
8.2 The respondents, being statutory authorities, cannot be
placed in a position where their own failure to act in accordance
with law becomes the foundation for defeating the petitioner’s
otherwise legitimate statutory claim. It is also necessary to notice
that the finding recorded by the Division Bench in this very case,
as brought to the notice of this Court, has not been disturbed or
set aside and, therefore, continues to hold the field in which it was
held that there was a complete violation of Rules 13 and 14 of the
Rules of 1994 by the Electoral Registration Officer prior to making
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(15 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
the publication under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1994. The legal
position emerging therefrom cannot be diluted by adopting an
interpretation which renders the statutory sequence contemplated
under the Rules redundant.
8.3 The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents with
regard to the restriction contained in Rule 21-A also requires
careful examination. No doubt, the said provision places a
restriction upon the Electoral Registration Officer and the appellate
authority from undertaking amendment, transposition or deletion
of entries after issuance of the public notice contemplated under
Rule 23 or Rule 58. However, the question which arises in the
present matter is whether such restriction can be construed so as
to extinguish the consequence of a statutory proceeding which
had already been initiated much prior to the issuance of such
public notice and which remained pending for no fault attributable
to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the commencement
of the election process cannot, by itself, become a justification for
overlooking the circumstances in which the petitioner’s claim
remained undecided. The distinction between a fresh request for
alteration of an electoral roll after commencement of the election
process and a claim duly instituted, enquired into and awaiting a
final decision before such commencement cannot be lost sight of.
The former may attract the statutory embargo, whereas the latter
requires examination of the conduct of the statutory authority and
the prejudice occasioned by its failure to act at the appropriate
stage.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(16 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
8.4 The judgment of Pawan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.24025/2026] passed by the Division Bench of
this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents also
deserves to be examined in its proper factual and legal context. It
appears that the relevant aspect concerning the sequential
operation of the statutory provisions, particularly the expression
“thereafter” occurring in Rule 17, has not been dealt with in the
manner in which the controversy arises in the present matter. A
decision rendered without consideration of the particular statutory
expression and the consequential sequence of events cannot
automatically be treated as determinative of an issue which was
neither examined nor adjudicated therein. The ratio of a judicial
pronouncement has to be understood with reference to the
question which actually fell for consideration and the reasoning
adopted for deciding the same.
8.5 So far as the other judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Kanti Lal v. Satte of Rajasthan & Ors. relied upon by
the respondents is concerned, the factual situation therein stands
on an entirely different footing. The controversy in that matter
pertained to reservation of a particular territorial area and the
consequential alteration of the reservation status of the concerned
constituency. Such an exercise, if undertaken at the stage when
elections are imminent, may have ramifications upon the entire
electoral arrangement, including the classification of
constituencies, reservation of seats and the rights of various
prospective candidates. The same may consequently disturb the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(17 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
electoral framework as a whole. The controversy involved herein,
however, is materially distinguishable. The petitioner is not
seeking alteration of the reservation status of any constituency,
reconstitution of any ward or modification of the electoral
structure. Her grievance is confined to the correction/transposition
of her individual electoral entry from one Gram Panchayat to
another, on the basis of her claim of ordinary residence, which had
already been subjected to physical verification and had been
raised well within the prescribed statutory period and much before
the publication of electoral roll and public notice of election. Such
a correction, if found permissible in accordance with law, does not,
by itself, necessitate any alteration in the reservation arrangement
or the overall electoral structure. The mere inclusion of the
petitioner’s name through an appropriate supplementary list,
subject to the statutory and constitutional requirements, would
not necessarily entail disruption of the election schedule or the
electoral process as a whole.
8.6 The distinction between interference with the election
process and correction of an individual electoral entry, in the
peculiar circumstances of the present case, therefore, assumes
considerable significance. The constitutional objective of
conducting elections in a timely and uninterrupted manner must
undoubtedly be respected, but the same cannot be converted into
a shield for perpetuating an administrative omission which has
already occasioned prejudice to a citizen.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(18 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
8.7 Coming to the factual aspect of ordinary residence, the
report dated 14.02.2026 assumes considerable evidentiary
significance. The respondents themselves recorded that the
petitioner had been residing for approximately three years in the
newly constructed residential premises of her father at Bhaniyana.
The mere circumstance that the petitioner was pursuing her
studies or that her parental connection was with another village
could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the question of
ordinary residence. The Explanation appended to Section 18(2) of
the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, requires the question to
be determined upon consideration of the relevant factual
circumstances. Neither ownership of a dwelling house nor
temporary absence can, in isolation, determine the issue. The
competent authority was, therefore, required to examine the
nature, continuity and duration of the petitioner’s residence, her
actual living arrangements and the other relevant circumstances
disclosed during the field enquiry. In any case her objection or
claim must have been adjudicated as provided. However, the
impugned orders do not demonstrate an appropriate consideration
of the material gathered by the respondents themselves. The
rejection of the petitioner’s claim at a belated stage which was
never communicated to her, without a meaningful determination
of the aforesaid aspects renders the decision vulnerable to judicial
scrutiny. It is equally important to observe that the petitioner is
not seeking registration at two different places simultaneously.
Her claim is for transposition of her existing electoral entry from
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(19 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
Gram Panchayat Chainpura to Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana, subject
to deletion or corresponding correction of the earlier entry in
accordance with law and publication of her name in the roll of
transferred place.
8.8 It is further contended that the action of the respondents is
ex facie discriminatory, inasmuch as one Kewal Singh, whose case
is stated to be similarly situated to that of the petitioner, has been
included in the electoral roll of Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana at
Serial No. 236 of Ward No. 04, despite the fact that he was the
then Sarpanch of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat. The aforesaid
factual position is borne out from the electoral roll produced
before this Court. Interestingly, she also moved an
application/objection as per Rules 13 and 14 of the Rules and
inquiry to her case was also conducted alongwith the case of
Kewal Singh which is very much evident from the recommendation
dated 14.02.2026 (Annexure-3), but his case was adjudicated
while leaving the case of the petitioner in limbo without
adjudication. Thus, when the respondents have considered it
permissible to include the name of Kewal Singh in the electoral roll
of Gram Panchayat Bhaniyana, despite his previous electoral
association with the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, no justifiable
reason is forthcoming as to why the petitioner’s request for a
similar treatment has been declined. Such differential treatment,
in the absence of any cogent or intelligible basis, prima facie
raises a question of arbitrariness and discriminatory exercise of
authority.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(20 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
9. This Court is conscious of the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and the
settled principle that the election process ought not ordinarily to
be interrupted once it has commenced. However, the
constitutional protection afforded to the election process cannot be
interpreted as a blanket immunity to statutory authorities against
judicial scrutiny of arbitrary or unlawful action preceding the
election. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts of the present case, is
directed towards examining the legality of the administrative
action and the failure to discharge the statutory obligation, rather
than adjudicating upon or questioning the election itself. The
respondent authority owe a duty to adhere and abide by the Rules
and the statutory mandate as envisaged under Rules 13 and 14
and objection legitimately raised. The law mandates the
adjudication of the objections raised and to have done as provided
under the law. If they have proceeded without following the
procedure, it was their fault and not of the petitioner. Now the
respondents cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own
wrong by simply raising a plea of commencement of election
process. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
commencement of the election process must have been done after
following the due process and complying with the provisions.
Publication of final list must precede adjudication of objection.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Election Commission of
India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Ors ., decided on
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(21 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
30.08.2000, reported in 2000 (8) SCC 216, has propounded the
principle that the constitutional bar against judicial interference in
electoral matters during the subsistence of an election process is
not absolute in its operation so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in every
circumstance. The Hon’ble Apex Court has elucidated that judicial
intervention during the election process is permissible where the
exercise of such jurisdiction is intended to facilitate the completion
of the election rather than obstruct, interrupt or protract the
same. The decisive consideration is whether the intervention
would subserve the progress of the election or instead impede its
completion. Thus, the constitutional embargo is not intended to
immunise arbitrary or unlawful actions of the authorities from
judicial scrutiny, provided that the intervention does not amount
to stalling or derailing the election process.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the statutory scheme
has to be interpreted in a manner which advances its object and
not in a manner which defeats the very purpose for which the
mechanism of claims, objections, enquiry and consequential
amendments have been incorporated. A citizen cannot be made to
suffer for an omission committed by the authority entrusted with
the responsibility of deciding the claim. The respondents cannot
first keep the petitioner’s application pending and undecided
despite having undertaken the requisite verification and thereafter
turn around to contend that the election process has commenced
and, therefore, nothing can be done now. Such an approach would
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)

(22 of 22)
[2026:RJ-JD:55836] [CW-27808/2026]
amount to permitting the authority to take advantage of its own
failure, which is impermissible in law. Consequently, this Court
finds that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the manner
in which they have been passed. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed.
12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. It is ordered
that the name of the petitioner be included in the electoral role of
Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana and be deleted from previous village
electoral list. A supplementary list shall be prepared immediately
showing her name as a voter of Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana and
the same shall be circulated/forwarded immediately to the
concerned RO, BRO and the Booth Level Officers. She shall be
allowed to cast her vote at Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana and to
contest election for whatever post she desires, if she is otherwise
eligible and her nomination form is found up to the mark.
13. The instant writ petition and stay petition as well as all
pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
D-A/1
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 14/11/2026 at 06:56:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/11/2026 at 07:32:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)