[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rajveer Kaur vs The State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2276
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.719 of 2026
Rajveer Kaur --Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Manoj Bhatt,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel has put in appearance
for respondent No.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.(Oral)
By means of the present writ petition, petitioner
has put to challenge the order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby, petitioner
was removed from the post of Gram Pradhan, Village
Bhogpur, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, having been
found disqualified under Section 8(1)(s) of the Uttarakhand
Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
2. The brief facts shorn-off the unnecessary details
are that petitioner-Smt. Rajveer Kaur was Gram Pradhan,
Village Bhogpur, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In a
proceeding, her husband-Dharmendra Singh (respondent
No.6) was found in unauthorized possession of government
land in Village Bhogpur. Since the unauthorized possession of
government land found with any of the family members or
legal heirs of a Gram Pradhan, attracts disqualification,
petitioner was declared disqualified and consequently by
impugned order, she was removed from the post of Pradhan.
3. Impugned order has been challenged by petitioner
mainly on the ground that before proceeding against
Pradhan, the due process of law has not been complied with
and rather has been kept at on the shelve.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner elaborated his
argument relying upon Section 138 of the Act and submitted
2026:UHC:2276
that the Rules have been framed earlier by the State of Uttar
Pradesh known as "The Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj
(Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry
Rules, 1997" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1997'),
prescribe a detailed procedure as to how an enquiry is to be
conducted for removal of the Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g)
of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act 1947, which according to
learned counsel for petitioner peri materia, with Section 138
read with Section 8(1)(s) of the Act.
5. He further submits that the Rules of 1997 has
been made applicable to the State of Uttarakhand by virtue of
Section 2(35) of the Act, is reproduced as under:
"{2(35)- "Rules" means rules made under this Act but until such
rules are not promulgated rules means rules promulgated under the
Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 and the Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961;}"
6. He further contends that since in the State of
Uttarakhand no Rules have been framed by the State
Government as yet for prescribing the procedure for removal
of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan, therefore, by virtue of Section
2(35) of the Act, Rules of 1997 would be attracted and would
be applicable in the present situation.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends
that in Rules of 1997, it has been prescribed that before
proceeding against Pradhan, a preliminary inquiry is to be
conducted by enquiry officer and enquiry officer shall be
District Panchayati Raj Officer (DPRO) or any of the District
Level Officer to be nominated by the District Magistrate. But
in the case in hand, it is submitted that District Magistrate
straightway passed the order for removal of Pradhan
exercising its power, which are not in consonance with the
Rules of 1997, therefore, there is extreme illegality in the
matter, which cannot be allowed to sustain.
8. Per contra, learned D.A.G. for the State submits
that District Magistrate has called a report from SDM
concerned and in the said report, petitioner's husband was
found in unauthorized possession of the government land,
2026:UHC:2276
therefore, the impugned order has been passed.
9. He further submits that Pradhan has become
disqualified once it was found that husband of Pradhan was
in unauthorized possession of the government land. He
further contends that disqualification under Section 8(1)(s) of
the Act empowers SDM to pass an order of disqualification,
therefore, he supports the action of District Magistrate,
Udham Singh Nagar.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the provisions of law and the Rules
of 1997, this Court is of the view that once it was found that
husband of Pradhan was in unauthorized possession of the
government land, the proceedings for removal of Pradhan
should have been commenced in accordance with the
provisions of Rules of 1997, wherein, Pradhan should have
been provided an opportunity to submit her point of view and
her defence. This has not been done by District Magistrate
and it straightway had passed the impugned order.
11. In view of the aforesaid factual background, this
Court is of the opinion that the sheer violation of Rules of
1997 has been done by the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar and has passed a wrong
order, which cannot be sustained under the law in any
situation.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 is hereby set aside.
However a liberty is given to the respondents-Authorities to
proceed against the petitioner-Pradhan in accordance with
law strictly complying the provisions of the Act and Rules of
1997 which has been made applicable to the State of
Uttarakhand.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.04.2026
PN
PREETI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38
331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F
AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC
, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2026.04.02 17:38:42 +05'30'
