WPMS/496/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 617 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                            BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 496 of 2021

 BETWEEN:

 Surendra Singh Rana.                           ....Petitioner
       (By Mr. Neeraj Garg, Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Mr. Pankaj
       Kumar, Advocates)

 AND:
 State of Uttarakhand and others.           .....Respondents
       (Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the
       State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for
       respondent no. 4)


                         JUDGMENT

It transpires that respondent no. 5 was elected as a Pradhan of a Gram Sabha. Petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 533 of 2020 before this Court questioning his caste certificate, in which respondent no. 5 has been declared as O.B.C. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to District Magistrate, Dehradun and District Magistrate was directed to take decision thereupon. The District Magistrate, Dehradun has rejected petitioner's representation vide order dated 01.02.2021. The said order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, while rejecting petitioner's

representation, the District Magistrate has not considered certain documents and such documents, if considered, would have changed the fate of the representation. He further submits that District Magistrate had called for a report from S.D.M., however, petitioner was not given any opportunity to rebut the said report. He further submits that District Magistrate ought to have referred the matter to Caste Scrutiny Committee, instead of deciding the issue himself.

3. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since this Court had directed the District Magistrate to take decision in the matter, therefore, District Magistrate was justified in deciding the issue. She further submits that all material available on record has been considered by District Magistrate and the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, regarding non-consideration of some aspects, is unsustainable.

4. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 has been elected as Gram Pradhan and he is presently holding the said office. In fact, petitioner wants removal of respondent no. 5 indirectly, by questioning his caste certificate. The result, which could have been obtained by filing an Election Petition by a candidate who lost the election, is sought to be obtained through this writ petition.

5. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition is abuse of process of law.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Caste Scrutiny Committee, if so advised.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan