Uttarakhand High Court
Kiran Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2025 (M/S)
Kiran Devi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated
09.07.2025, passed by respondent no.4, the Returning Officer, by
which the nomination of the petitioner for contesting election of
Member Zila Panchayat, has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not holding any office of profit; she was a member of
State Women Commission, but she had resigned prior to her
nomination, and in the rejection order, it was wrongly held that the
petitioner has concealed the information. Therefore, the rejection order
is bad.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 submits
that the petitioner may challenge her rejection in the election petition
that may be filed under Section 131(4)(h) of the Uttarakhand
Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 ("the Act"). He further submits that
challenge, at this stage, may not be entertained, when the election is
already underway, in view of Article 234-O of the Constitution of India.
5. Section 131 (4) (h) of the Act reads as follows:-
"(h) (1) The election of a person, Chairman or as members
of a Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as a
Panch shall not be called in question except by an application
presented to such authority within such time and in such manner
as may be prescribed on the ground;
Provided that the election has not been a free election by
reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has
extensively prevailed at the election,
(ii) that the result of the election has been materially
affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of
any nomination; or
(ii) by gross failure to comply with the
provisions of this Act or the rules framed
thereunder."
6. Article 243-O clause (b) of the Constitution of India reads
as follows:-
"243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral
matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution.-
(a)
.............................................................................
...
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented
to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the
Legislature of a State."
7. The election process is already underway. The challenge
to the rejection order is made on the ground of improper rejection. This
may be a ground that the petitioner may take in the election petition,
in view of Section 131 (4) (h) of the Act.
8. Therefore, at this stage, this petition may not be
entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
23.07.2025
Ravi Bisht
