HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2395 of 2025 (M/S)

Anchal Dauriyal ….......Petitioner Vs.

District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Uttarkashi and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1, 3 and 4.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.5.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions that the respondent no.2/Assistant Returning Officer to decide the objection submitted by the petitioner in respect of the Caste Certificate of the respondent no.5 and further to cancel nomination of the respondent no.5 for Block Pramukh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.5 had earlier obtained Caste Certificate as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, but this time she has contested the election of Kshetra Panchayat, Purola under Scheduled Caste Category. Now, she proposes to contest the election of Block Pramukh under the Scheduled Caste Category; her Caste Certificate is false; the petitioner has given objection to the respondent no.2, but it has not been considered.

4. In fact, this matter was taken up yesterday. Learned State Counsel has then given a statement that the objections filed by the petitioner have already been rejected. To it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision has not been communicated to the petitioner.

5. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the objection filed by the petitioner is cryptic. It does not touch the merits of the objections. Therefore, he submits that the respondent no.2 may be directed to pass a detailed order on the objections filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that for election, there is a time schedule and the scrutiny is already over and voting is scheduled for tomorrow. Therefore, now Assistant Returning Officer may not be directed to pass another order because it will effect the elections.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the notification for election is already issued and voting is to be done tomorrow. He would submit that in view of the bar, as contained under Section 243(o) of the Constitution of India, the writ petition may not be entertained, as this may delay the election process. He also submits that the challenge to the election of the Block Pramukh may be made under Section 131(h)(1) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”).

8. Article 243(o) reads as follows:-

“243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,—

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court;

(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.”

9. Section 131(h)(1) of the Act is as follows:-

“131. Other provisions related to the electoral.— ………………. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………..... (h)(1) The election of a person, Chairman or as members of a Panchayat 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”

10. In so far as election of Block Pramukh is concern, Section 131H(10) of the Act also makes provisions that if a question arises that an