[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Mukul Talwar vs State Of Madhya on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No. Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 20 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Chief Standing Counsel with
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the State
Election Commission.
4. On 18.03.2026, the matter was posted for 08.04.2026 in
order to enable learned counsel for the State Election
Commission and State Government to get definite
instructions as per mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court decision
in the case of Suresh Mahajan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others (2022) 12 SCC 778.
5. In compliance of previous order, learned CSC has
placed before this Court the instructions of Deputy
Secretary.
6. It is very strange that instructions, as given by the
Deputy Secretary, are not complete and not strictly as per
directions issued by this Court on the previous date. It
appears that the Authorities while issuing the instructions
to the State Counsel have not gone through with the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is complete
ignorance on their part, particularly when the issue relates
to election. As a matter of fact, election were held in
February, 2025 in all the Municipalities, Corporations and
Nagar Panchayats by excluding certain Nagar Panchayats
and Municipalities. In this particular case, the period of
Municipality election was expired in December, 2023 and
now, more than 2 years have been passed but uptil date no
election has been conducted so far.
7. Mr. Talwar, learned Sr. Advocate submits that in fact,
action of respondent in not holding a contemptuous act,
since the Coordinate Bench on 06.03.2025 in Civil Contempt
Petition No. 79 of 2025 directed the State to get instructions
regarding time needed for completing the elections for
reconstituting Board of Kichha Municipality. He also
pointed out that even after the order passed by the
Contempt Court on 06.03.2025, respondent issued another
notification dated 24.04.2025 excluding Siroli Kalan from
Municipality, Kichha, though Contempt Court clearly
directed the State to get instructions regarding time
schedule for completing the election of Kichha
Municipality. He further submits that excluding Siroli Kalan
from Kichha Municipality by Notification dated 24.04.2025
is nothing but an attempt to sit over the directions issued by
the Contempt Court.
8. List on 16.04.2026 as a first case in order to enable the
counsels for the State and Election Commission to get
complete instructions failing which the Secretary, State
Election Commission and Secretary, Urban Development
shall appear at 12.00 noon.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
10.04.2026
SKS
