HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.333 of 2026

13th February, 2026 Mussarat ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, S.C. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent- Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, to take immediate and appropriate action against respondent no.5-Akram, Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat-

Kasampur, Block-Bahadrabad, District-Haridwar.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.5 was elected as Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat-Kasampur, Block-Bahadrabad, District-Haridwar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never passed High School Examination and the institution from where the respondent no.5 claims to have passed High School Examination has given a report to the petitioner under R.T.I. that the institution never conducted examination of the High School standard. Thus respondent no.5 is disqualified from contesting for and holding the post of Gram Pradhan in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(q) of The Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

4. The petitioner has moved an application on 18.11.2025 (annexure no.7 to the writ petition) to the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, under Section 8(5) of the said Act for declaring the petitioner disqualified on the basis of aforesaid reasons.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application is still pending before the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar for the last 2 months and 27 days.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an innocuous prayer to direct the Prescribed Authority/Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, to decide the said application moved by the petitioner within a stipulated period.

7. Though there is no opposition from the State on the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is submitted by State Government that in order to verify the documents which have been submitted by the respondent no.5, some time may be needed, as the same were issued by the institute situated in the State of Maharashtra.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the pleadings made in the writ petition, this writ petition is being finally disposed of with a direction to the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, concerned to decide the application dated 18.11.2025 (annexure no.7 to the writ petition) moved by the petitioner within a period of not later than six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that while deciding the application of the petitioner all the stakeholders shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

13.02.2026

SK