Jaipur, July 7 -- he legal battle over Rajasthan's delayed panchayat and urban local body elections has returned to the state high court, with petitioner Sanyam Lodha filing a contempt petition alleging that the state government and election authorities have failed to comply with the court's directions to conduct the polls by July 31. The contempt petition was filed on Monday before the Jaipur Bench of the high court after the state government and the State Election Commission did not announce the election schedule despite the court's order dated May 22, 2026. In its judgment, the court had directed that elections to all local bodies, including gram panchayats and urban local bodies, be completed by July 31, 2026. The court had also instructed the authorities to complete ward delimitation and revision of electoral rolls for urban local bodies by June 20. The petition names senior IAS officers of the State Election Commission, the Panchayati Raj Department and the Department of Local Self Government as respondents, alleging deliberate non-compliance with the court's binding directions. It refers to a letter issued on June 15 by the Department of Local Self Government to the Secretary of the OBC Commission, seeking information regarding reservation for the Extremely Backward Classes in urban local bodies. The communication stated that reservation details for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and women under Rules 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 could be forwarded to the State Election Commission only after the OBC Commission submitted its report. However, officials said the OBC Commission had sought data from the state government to prepare its report, but the required information was not fully supplied, leading to further delays. The contempt petition argues that the court had already clarified in its May 22 judgment that elections should not be postponed pending the OBC Commission's report. The court held that any delay in the commission's recommendations could not be used as grounds to defer the electoral process. Despite these directions, the petitioner alleged that the state government and the concerned departments continued to cite the pending report and the "triple test" process while delaying poll preparations....