Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Aditya Singh And Mr. Yogesh Kumar vs Unknown on 4 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
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. 3622 of 2024, WPMS No. 3627 of 2024, WPMS No. 3623 of 2024
WPMS No. 3624 of 2024, WPMS No. 3625 of 2024, WPMS No. 3626 of 2024,
WPMS No. 3628 of 2024, WPMS No. 3629 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Yogesh Kumar
Pacholia, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsle
for the State.
3. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for State
Election Commission.
4. The matter was argued at length and the learned
counsel for the parties address on the issue, which this
court has framed on 10.01.2025 particularly in
paragraph-60. While framing the said issue, this court
gone through with the judgments relied upon by both
the parties, which are as follows:
(i) Anugrah Narain Singh and other vs. State of
U.P. 1996 (6) SCC 303 (para-25)
(ii) Election Commission of India vs. Ashok
Kumar and Other 2000 (8) SCC 216
(iii) State of Goa vs. Fouziya and Another 2021 (8)
SCC 401.
5. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel
and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for State Election
Commission submits that in view of Section 19(2)(b) of
Uttarakhand Municipalities Act, 1916 and Section 71
(d)(iv) of Municipal Corporation Act if there is non-
compliance with the provision of the Act and the Rules
then that may be subject matter of the election petition.
They submit that as per the arguments as advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties that there is non-
compliance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules, which the State Government has framed on
23.12.2024, therefore, the subject matter of the instant
petition can only be a subject matter of the election
petition and not be a subject matter of the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In response to this, learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that this is not a case, which is based
upon non-compliance of the Act and the Rules, but this
is a case, wherein, the notification with regard to the
roster of reservation is challenged on the ground that
the same is against the constitutional mandate and that
can only be a subject matter of the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Anugrah Narain Singh (supra), which still holds a
good law as relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the subsequent judgment i.e. in the case of State of Goa
vs. Fouziya (supra).
7. He also submits that after relying upon all these
judgments i.e. Anugrah Narain Singh and the
subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the
issue was framed by this court in paragraph-60 of the
order dated 10.01.2025 and the answer to the issue as
framed by this court is in paragraph-25 of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anugrah
Narain Singh. He submits that the issue as raised in
these petitions regarding the notification with regard to
the roster of reservation of seats in municipality as well
as in municipal corporation cannot be a subject matter
of the election petition and can only be a subject matter
of the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. He submits that in view of the settled principle of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Anugrah Narain Singh, which still holds a good law
the only remedy, which is available to the petitioner, in
challenging the notification with regard to the roster of
reservation is available under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and that cannot be a subject
matter of the election petition.
9. On addressing this issue, the learned counsel for
the State as well as State Election Commission sought
time and requests that the matter be posted on
23.06.2025.
10. Put up this matter on 23.06.2025 at 3:00 PM.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
04.06.2025
PR
