Uttarakhand High Court
Through: Shri Shubhang Dobhal vs Smt. Sangeeta on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (MS) No. 3094 of 2022
Zahira Begum. ................Petitioner.
Through: Shri Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
-Versus-
Smt. Sangeeta
and another. .........Respondents.
Through: Shri I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1.
Shri Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Date of Hearing & Order : 08.12.2022
Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
relief:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the aforesaid impugned orders
dated 25.08.2022 and 23.11.2022 (contained as
Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition)."
2. The facts of the case are that on 23.10.2019, the petitioner
was elected as Gram Pradhan of the Gram Sabha Dakrani, Tehsil
- Vikas Nagar. The said election was questioned by respondent
no. 1 by filing an Election Petition No. 1 alleging that petitioner is
not eligible to contest the election, as the certificate of Class 8 filed
by her, which is taken to be basis of eligibility of candidature of
petitioner to contest the election is forged. The said election
petition is registered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2019 and is
pending before Assistant Collector/ Prescribed Authority, Vikas
Nagar, Dehradun. On 17.02.2020, during the pendency of the
election petition, respondent no. 1 filed a document in the record
and then Assistant Collector, Vikas Nagar submitted a report to
the District Election Officer, Dehradun regarding the enquiry of
the qualification of the petitioner. The report conveys that
petitioner is not eligible to contest the election, as the certificate of
Class 8 is issued by a Madarsa, which is not a recognized
educational institution. On 21.01.2020, the petitioner filed an
application stating that she came to know that inquiry regarding
the academic certificate of her has been conducted by the
Assistant Collector, Vikas Nagar and after inquiry, the Assistant
Collector, Vikas Nagar, has given report dated 21.01.2020 stating
therein that she is not eligible to contest the election. On
25.08.2022, respondent no. 2 dismissed the application filed by
the petitioner for transfer of the election petition to some other
competent court. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner
preferred a Civil Revision No. 11 of 2022 before the District
Judge, Dehradun, which was transferred to the court of Addl.
District Judge, Dehradun. Vide order dated 23.11.2022, the Addl.
District Judge, Dehradun dismissed the revision filed by the
petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a
person cannot be a Judge of his own cause. The Assistant
Collector, who is the Prescribed Authority, has come to the
conclusion that Class 8 certificate of the petitioner is not valid, as
it is issued by Madarsa, which is not a recognised Educational
Institution, then it will improper on his part to decide the election
petition.
4. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in the
meantime, the Revenue Officer, who was holding the post of
Assistant Collector / Prescribed Authority has been transferred
and in his place, some other qualified person has taken over the
charge of the post of Assistant Collector, 1st Class / Prescribed
Authority. The principle that a person should not be a Judge of
his own cause applies to a person and not to the post.
5. Even if the predecessor of the present incumbent has taken
a view in different proceedings, now, the petitioner has no
grievance to assert. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being
without merit. However, while dismissing the writ petition, we
direct the Prescribed Authority to take an independent view de
hors the view taken by his predecessor in the related proceedings.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Grant urgent certified copy of this judgment, as per Rules)
SKS
