I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI RAKESH THAPLI YAL January 03, 2025 Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3622 of 2024 Akash Paswan …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3623 of 2024 Lavi Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3624 of 2024 Robin Manoj Bhandari …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3625 of 2024 Surendra Dutt Nautiyal and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3626 of 2024 Daya Sah …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3627 of 2024 Shobha Joshi …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3628 of 2024 Prem Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents with Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 3629 of 2024 Shanti Rawat …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Amar Murti Shukla in WPMS No.3622 of 2024, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel in WPMS No.3623 of 2024, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel in WPMS No.3624 of 2024 and WPMS No.3626 of 2024, Mr. Dushyant Mainali and Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel in WPMS No.3625 of 2024 and WPMS No.3629 of 2024, Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel in WPMS No.3627 of 2024, Mr. Krishna Kant Joshi learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel in WPMS No.3628 of 2024.

Counsel for the State. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General with Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for State Election Commission/respondents.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Order: 1. Yesterday a mention was made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. that all these bunch of petitions be preponed from 06.01.2025 to 03.01.2025 and on their request, mention was accepted, and the matter was posted for today. 2. Today, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. placed before this Court the written instructions of Deputy Secretary, in order to assist this Court.

3. On the previous date the arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in all these bunch of petitions, they placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 1140 relied upon particularly placing reliance in paragraph 37 and 44, which has been quoted in para 24 of my order dated 31.12.2024.

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon three more judgments, one is in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi & others 1978 (1) SCC 405 and particularly they relied upon paragraphs 28 & 29 of the said judgment, which are as under:-

28. What emerges from this perspicacious reasoning, if we may say so with great respect, is that any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question” an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. We should not slur over the quite essential observation “Anything done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election.” Likewise, it is fallacious to treat “a single step taken in furtherance of an election” as equivalent to election.”

29. Thus, there are two types of decisions, two types of challenges. The first relates to proceedings which interfere with the progress of the election. The second accelerates the completion of the election and acts in furtherance of an election. So, the short question before us, in the light of t