I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK MAHRA

16^TH JULY, 2025 WRI T PETI TI ON ( MB) No. 532 OF 2025 Seeta …..Petitioner Versus State Election Commissioner and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, and Mr. Ayush Pokhriyal, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. The calendar of events of the subject election is as under:

3. As there is ample time, we have taken up the writ petition.

4. We have come across another shocking case of sheer abuse of power, whereby, on the mere say of the competing candidate that the ‘No Dues Certificate’ “seems” to be a fake, the Returning Officer, during scrutiny, has rejected the nomination of the petitioner. It is admitted that initially, on the basis of the complaint the Returning Officer, raised an objection that it is not issued by the Secretary of the Bank and, hence, he would not be accepting the Certificate, though neither any Rules, Regulations or instructions are placed before the Court to demonstrate the same. It is also an indisputable fact that upon receiving notice and upon coming to know the opinion of the Returning Officer, the Petitioner, has approached the Bank and the Bank has issued one more Certificate stating that there is no loan granted to the petitioner and hence, there are no amounts due from the petitioner and the said Certificate has been issued by the Secretary himself. Despite and after producing the said Certificate, the nomination came to be rejected. As a result, the objector remains the sole candidate.

5. Prima facie, it appears that the Returning Officer has acted in an patently illegal manner, probably to influence the election of the other candidate. Despite the availability of the said Certificate and despite the production of a second Certificate, even without an inquiry with the Co-operative Bank, or any expert opinion, the Returning Officer has blatantly and arbitrarily concluded that the Certificate is a fake one. It is also further clarified by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, no order of rejection has been passed, but merely the name of the petitioner has been placed in the list of rejected candidates. To state that this is a clear case of endangering democracy could be going little soft on the Returning Officer. It appears that the Returning Officer has apparently misused the authority vested in him to ensure the election of the candidate.

6. In that prima facie view, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case which requires to be investigated.

7. Be that as it may, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the Returning Officer and, thereafter for this Court to give any further direction, but in the meanwhile to prevent the apparent arbitrary action and illegality, it is just and necessary that an interim order directing the Returning Officer to allot the symbol to the petitioner and print the name of the petitioner in the ballot paper is required to be issued. 8. A short while ago, we had also dealt with one more classic case of gross abuse of power by the authority, where