Advocates:
['PARIKSHIT SAINI', 'C S C', 'MANOJ BHATT', 'SACHINVIKRAMADITYA SHAHJITENDRA CHAUDHARY']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 74 of 2022

Surjeet Singh

……………...Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Uttarakhand & Others ……….….…...Respondents

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

Date of Hearing and Order: 31.08.2022

Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has

passed the following order:-

1.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated

13.08.2021 and 03.01.2022 passed by respondent nos.

1 and 2 respectively (Contained as Annexure Nos. 8 and

9 to this writ petition).

2.

Vide order dated 03.01.2022 passed by respondent no. 2

– the learned District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar,

the respondent no. 3 has been reinstated on the post of

Village Pradhan.

2

3.

The facts of the case are not in disputed at this stage.

The respondent no. 3 was elected as a Village Pradhan

in general three tier Panchayat Election held in the year

2019

for

Village Panchayat

-

Nazimabad,

Block

Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. It is alleged that the

respondent no. 3 and her husband were in joint illegal

occupation and possession of the Government Land,

which was revealed from the report of Tehsildar, Kiccha,

dated 24.01.2020. Thereafter, considering the said

report and as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(s) of the

Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act” for brevity), the respondent no. 3

was declared as disqualified to hold the post of Village

Pradhan. Thus, by invoking the provisions of Section

138 of the Act, the learned District Magistrate, Udham

Singh Nagar, removed the respondent no. 3 from the

post of Village Pradhan vide order dated 01.12.2020.

The said order was challenged by respondent no. 3

before this Court in WPMS No. 2307 of 2020 and as the

said writ petition was heard by the Coordinate Bench

and vide order dated 08.12.2020, dismissed the writ

petition with a finding that respondent no. 3 is in illegal

possession of the Government land, and therefore, she

has become disqualified to hold the post of Village

3

Pradhan. The respondent no. 3 carried the matter to the

Division Bench bearing Special Appeal No. 20 of 2021

and that the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on

11.05.2021 with liberty to pursue the representation.

Thereafter, again another writ petition was filed by

the respondent no. 3 seeking a report whereby a finding

has come that respondent no. 3 is in illegal possession

over the Government land, which became a ground of

her removal from the said post and the same as being

registered as WPMS No. 858 of 2021 but the same was

again dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2021 with

liberty to file fresh, after decision of the Special Appeal,

filed by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 filed another writ

petition being WPMS No. 1038 of 2021 challenging the

inquiry report dated 24.01.2020. The said writ petition

was again dismissed on 07.06.2021. Against the said

order, the respondent no. 3 filed a Special Appeal

bearing SPA No. 180 of 2021, which was also withdrawn

with liberty to file a review application in WPMS No.

1038 of 2021. A review application was filed by the

respondent no. 3, which was again dismissed.

4

4.

It is stated by learned counsel for the respondent no. 3

that the respondent no. 3 in pursuance to the liberty

granted to her by the Division Bench, she pursued her

representation made before respondent no. 2 and

respondent no. 2 vide order dated 03.01.2022 reinstated

the respondent no. 3 on the post of Village Pradhan

allegedly without following any due procedure or hearing

the ag