Akash Pasvan vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5060 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Akash Pasvan vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 October, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
            AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3622 of 2024

Akash Pasvan                                  ............Petitioner
                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                   .......Respondents.

                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3623 of 2024
Lavi Singh.                                   ............Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                   .......Respondents.

                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3624 of 2024
Robin Manoj Bhandari.                         ............Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                   .......Respondents.

                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3625 of 2024
Surendra Dutt Nautiyal
and another.                                 ............Petitioners
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                   .......Respondents.
                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3626 of 2024
Daya Sah                                       ............Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                    .......Respondents.
                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2024
Shobha Joshi                                   ............Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                    .......Respondents.
                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3628 of 2024
Prem Singh.                                    ............Petitioner
                              Versus
                                                 2




State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                                          .......Respondents.
                               With
               Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3629 of 2024
Shanti Rawat.                                  ............Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                    .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the State Election Commission.
Mr. Satyapal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the intervener.
Mr. Manish Kumar, holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, in
WPMS No. 3624 of 2024.



Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Intervention Application No. 06 of 2025 filed in WPMS No. 3627 of 2024 is allowed. Learned counsel for the intervener may assist this Court at the time of final arguments.

2. At the initial stage, when all these bunch of writ petitions came up before this Court, learned Advocate General argued that as now, the election has been notified, therefore, at this stage, any interference with the notification amount to interference with the election process. Taking into consideration the submission as above, this Court have not interfered with the election process and framed following issue on 10.01.2025

"What would be the impact of impugned notification, if the elections are concluded, after declaring the result of the returned candidate and whether the non- compliance of Constitutional provision as well as non-compliance with the provisions of Municipality Act and the Municipal Corporation Act as well as Rules of 2024 can be a subject matter of election petition or not?

3. Subsequently, one of the petitioner approach to Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 10.02.2025 by affirming the issue as framed above and directed to the High Court to dispose of main petition as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, this matter was heard on different dates.

4. Today, Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel, who appears for a returned candidate who filed an in Intervention Application i.e. I.A. No. 06 of 2025 in WPMS No. 3627 of 2024 submits by placing reliance of two judgments of different High Courts. One, in the case of Latha and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, MANU / KA / 00028 / 2017 and another one, of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Manish Dharmaik and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others MANU / HP. 0022 / 2021 that the notification with regard to the roster of reservation can be a subject matter of election petition in view of Article 243 ZG of Constitution of India, which is paramateria to Article 243 O of Constitution of India.

5. In response to this, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this aspect has already been dealt with by this Court while framing the issue on 10.01.2025 and reiterate his argument, which he has advanced on 10.01.2025 by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and others vs. State of U.P. 1996(6) SCC

303.

6. These bunch of writ petitions relates to election of Municipalities and Municipal Corporation. Section 19 of the Uttarakhand Municipalities Act, 1916 governed Municipalities election which read as under:

"19. Power to question municipal election by petition. - (1) The election of any person as a

member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition on the ground, -

(a) that such person committed during or in respect of the election proceedings a corrupt practice as defined in Section 28;

(b) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes, or any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes;

(c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected.

(2) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality shall not be questioned, -

(a) on the ground that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from, or the name of any person not qualified to vote has been inserted in the electoral roll or rolls;

(b) on the ground of any non-compliance with this Act or any rule, or of any mistake in the forms required thereby, or of any error, irregularity or informality on the part of the officer or officers charged with carrying out this Act or any rules, unless such non-compliance, mistake, error, irregularity or informality has materially affected the result of the election."

7. Section 19 clearly reveals that in three contingencies election can be questioned by way of election petition but it no

where provides that roster of reservation can also be questioned in an election petition.

8. Section 71 of the Uttarkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 relates to election dispute in Municipal Corporation, which read as under:

"71. Grounds for declaring an election to be void - If the District Judge is of opinion --

(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under this Act; or

(b) that any corrupt practice specified in section 78 has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected --

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by a person other than that candidate or his election agent or a person acting with the consent of such candidate or election agent, or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the District Judge shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."

9. Now, the question which is required to be considered is - whether in respect of election dispute relating to Municipalities and Municipal Corporation, issue of roster of reservation can be questioned in an election petition.

10. On the previous date, learned counsel for the State and the State Election Commission argued that issued of roster of reservation can be questioned by way of election petition however, on reading of Section 19 of the Municipalities Act, primarily it reveals that issue of roster of reservation cannot be questioned in an election petition.

11. Mr. Satyapal Jain, learned Sr. Advocate one of the intervener, in order to assist the Court submits that first this Court should examine whether the impugned notification is valid or not and if this Court comes to the conclusion that impugned notification is not valid, then the remaining issue can be examined.

12. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State requests that the matter be posted on 04.11.2025.

13. On his request, list all these matters on 04.11.2025 after fresh matters.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 29.10.2025 SKS