Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/925/2021 on 17 September, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.925 of 2021
With
WPMS No.2118 of 2020
WPMS No.2226 of 2020
WPMS No.1332 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate and Ms.
Akleema Parveen, Advocate for the petitioner in
WPMS No.925 of 2021.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate and
Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. G.D. Joshi and Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Advocates
for the petitioners in WPMS Nos.2118 of 2020 and
1332 of 2011.
Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent
no.5./State Election Commission in WPMS
No.1332 of 2021.
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for
respondent no.6 and representing respondent no.8
in WPMS No.2226 of 2020.
In these bunch of writ petitions, the challenge
given by the petitioners is to the order which has
been passed by the District Magistrate. As a
consequence of the direction, which were issued by
the orders passed by this Court, as rendered by
different Coordinate Benches in different writ
petitions, which widely had a bearing and effect
upon the consideration of declaration to include a
part of village Mandawar within village Chauli
Sahabuddinpur. The fact which has been taken by
the District Magistrate, respectively in the writ
petitions, there had been various grounds, which
had been considered by the District Magistrate, but
in order to limit the controversy and to be resolved
the same in accordance with law, since under the
provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh
Electoral Registration Rules, 1994, as it has been
made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand by the
implications of Uttar Pradesh Re-Organization Act,
2000 Act, in fact the decision with regards to the
inclusion or non-inclusion of a particular area in a
Panchayat areas exclusively for the purposes, of
electoral process is to be considered and decided by
the State Government, herein it would mean the
Secretary, Panchayat Raj.
Owing to the aforesaid reasons since the
controversy, which has been decided by the District
Magistrate and in some of the writ petitions by the
State, too denying to consider the aspect of de-
limitation, as well as, the aspect of determination of
voting rights of the petitioners, on the pretext that
no reference has been made by the State
Government to the District Magistrate, that in itself
may not construe as ground for the State to not to
decide the issue, who is otherwise under the statute
competent to decide the issue of preparation of the
voter list and the aspect of de-limitation. Hence, at
this stage this Court is not venturing into
determining the controversy on its merit based on
the findings recorded in the orders of the District
Magistrate.
All these writ petitions are closed on the
consensus arrived between the counsel for the
parties. Secretary, Panchayat Raj, is directed to
decide the issue pertaining to the inclusion or non-
inclusion of the name of residents of the village in
the voter list? The issue pertaining to the issue of
de-limitation of the villages? within a period of
three months from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order and prior to taking the
decision, the Secretary, Panchayat Raj is directed to
make wide publication in the local daily
newspapers and before taking any decision, he
would hear the objection, if any, which may be filed
by any of the parties effected by it.
Subject to the above, all the writ petitions
stand disposed of and the relief as prayed for in the
writ petitions are modified to that extent.
This matter was heard finally on 17.09.2021
but later on, while re-scrutinizing the judgment in
its co-relative study with the records of the writ
petition, this Court is of the view that it has to be
heard afresh.
Hence, Registry is directed to list this matter
for hearing.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
17.09.2021
Arti
