IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 1556 (MS) of 2015

Harvans Singh. …….Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

and others. ...….Respondents.

Present:

Mr. T.K. Nailwal, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand / respondents.

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral)

Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this

Court assailing the election of respondent no. 4, who was

declared elected as Village Pradhan of Village Dhoomkheda,

Block Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar on 29.06.2014.

Undisputedly, election of Village Pradhan can be

challenged under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,

1947. Undisputedly, petitioner has not approached Election

Tribunal to challenge the election of respondent no. 4 within

time.

Mr. T.K. Nailwal, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submits that as per report of the SDM / Deputy Collector,

Sitarganj dated 23.02.2015 constituencies were wrongly

formulated / constituted, which has materially affected the

election.

Mr. T.K. Nailwal, Advocate for the petitioner, while

placing reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of Punjab and

Haryana High Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. State of

Haryana reported in AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 1 has

vehemently argued that election of Panchayat / Muncipality

can be challenged directly before the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition

2

challenging the election of the elected Gram Pradhan should

not be thrown out on the ground of availability of alternative

remedy of election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P.

Panchayat Raj Act.

The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court

in the case of Lal Chand (supra) while placing reliance on the

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.

Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti reported in AIR 1995 SC 1512

has held that neither delimitation of Panchayat area nor of the

constituency in the said area and the allotment of seats to the

constituencies, could be challenged nor the Court could

entertain such challenge except on the ground that before the

delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was

given; even this challenge could not be entertained, after

notification for holding elections was issued.

In the case of Lal Chand (supra), the delimitation of

constituencies was challenged in the writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India and in those circumstances, the

Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that

election of Panchayat / Municipalities can be challenged

directly before the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, if legality of delimitation of Panchayat

area, constituencies and allotment of seats to the constituencies

is involved. In the case in hand, petitioner is not challenging the

legality of delimitation of the Panchayat area or allotment of

seats to the constituencies. Moreover, there is nothing on record

to suggest that either soon before or soon after the election,

legality of delimitation or allotment of seats was ever

challenged by the petitioner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that since election petition could not be filed within the

3

period of limitation prescribed, therefore, petitioner should be

given liberty to approach Election Tribunal at this belated stage

challenging the election of respondent no. 4 as Gram Pradhan,

held in the month of June, 2014 and in the event of filing

election petition within three weeks from today, same should

not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Since no election petition was filed within the

period of limitation and there is no provision to condone the

delay in preferring the election petition, therefore, merely

because petitioner was