SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 27043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MADHU DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMB 745 / 2025



##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11520-DB

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

S NL o.

.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPMB 745/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing

Counsel, for the State.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the

respondent no. 2.

(2) Petitioner contested election for the

Gram Pradhan, Gram Sabha Kund, Patti

Dasjula, Dhanaulti, District Tehri Garhwal, but

she lost to Pyarelal Nautiyal (respondent no.

6). In this writ petition, petitioner has

challenged the final result of the election,

which was declared on 31.7.2025. It is alleged

that since both petitioner and respondent no.

6 secured 125 votes each, therefore, there

was a tie and the tie was broken by the

concerned SDM in violation of applicable rules.

It is further alleged that the tie was artificially

created and, in fact, petitioner had won the

election by one vote, however she was

declared unsuccessful. In this writ petition,

petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of Certiorari, to quash the final result of the election,

declared vide Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2025.

(Annexure-07)

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus, Directing the State Election Commission to

setup enquiry into the actions of the Sub Divisional

Magistrate and the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 03

and 04 respectively).

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 03 and 04 to

furnish this Hon'ble Court the envelope of the eleven (11)

votes declared as invalid for the perusal of this Hon'ble

Court;

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 03 and 04 to

clearly disclose the video footage and provide clarification

of the entire process of the lottery system along with all the

necessary photos and video clips of the said process,

##PAGE2##

2025:UHC:11520-DB

pursuant to the representation dated 01.08.2025 authored

by the Petitioner (Annexure-08);

v. In the alternative, issue a writ, order or

direction in the nature of Mandamus, to the Respondent

State Election Commission to assign a competent presiding

officer/election tribunal for the hearing of the present

election dispute, if this Hon'ble Court deems it fit to do so.

vi. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of Mandamus, directing the Respondent State Election

Commission to issue guidelines in compliance with the

decision of this Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 118 (13) of

Vipul Jain vs State of Uttarakhand 2019 SCC OnLine Utt

1024, (Annexure-13) especially directing to device a

redressal mechanism for voters to approach with objections

where the election officers (ROs or AROs) are themselves

suspect of electoral malpractices;”

(3) Mr. Sanjay Bhatt submits that

petitioner has remedy of filing election petition

under Section 131-H of Uttarakhand

Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. Mr. Abhijay Negi,

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner,

concedes that petitioner has remedy of

election petition. He further submits that since

SDM (respondent no. 3) had broken the tie

and the election petition would have gone

before the same SDM, therefore, petitioner

approached this Court by filing the present

writ petition. He, however, submits that SDM

concerned is now transferred and some new

incumbent has taken over as SDM, Dhanaulti,

therefore petitioner may now be permitted to

approach the appropriate forum by preferring

the election petition under Section 131-H of

Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

(4) We, therefore, dispose of the writ

petition with liberty to petitioner to file election

petition. Election petition, if filed within ten

days from today, shall be heard and decided,

as per law, on merits.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

23.12.2025

Pr

P KR UA MB AO RDH DU2sCDe.6TiN a5rg07ti:4ae 3FAtcl:a,32N =R 2pl C0Iu0yNo=9mK ss, 135tiobga.A= 150elnC2N7Hr8eoB2DIdGdEa4 ,b De5 1=y 3CC ,2P :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top