HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2234 of 2025 (M/S)

Sri Ram Singh ….......Petitioner Vs.

State Election Commission, Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the State Election Commission.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the State Election Commission and the Returning Officer, to forthwith reject the nomination of Respondent No.5 for the election to Kshettra Panchayat 1 Baraon, District Nainital, on the ground of her ineligibility arising from her simultaneous registration in two distinct electoral rolls in contraventiuon of the statutory provisions;

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct fresh elections of Kshettra Panchayat 11 Baraon, District Nainital in accordance with law, ensuring strict compliance with the statutory provisions and the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections;

III. Or/and pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.5 is not eligible for contesting the election of Members, Kshetra Panchayat because her name is included in two Voters List, despite that her nomination has been accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judicial review is not totally barred, the Court may examine this issue. He referred to the principle of law as laid down in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000)8 SCC 216, in which case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines as follows:-

“18. Is there any conflict between the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts by Article 226 of the Constitution and the embargoes created by Article 329 and if so how would they coexist came up for the consideration of a Constitution Bench of this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) 1 SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64. The law enunciated in Ponnuswami (1952) 1 SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64 was extensively dealt with, also amplified, by another Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851. The plenary power of Article 329 has been stated by the Constitution Bench to be founded on two principles:

(1) the peremptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion;

(2) the provision of a special jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrieved party at the end of the election excludes other form, the right and remedy being creatures of statutes and controlled by the Constitution.

On these principles the conclusions arrived at in Ponnuswami case (1952) 1 SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64 were so stated in Mohinder Singh Gill case (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851: (SCC p. 426, para 26)

“(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.

(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the ‘election’; and, if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they bel