Advocates:
['ANIL KUMAR JOSHI', '', 'M S BHANDARI', 'C S C', 'SHIVANAND BHATT']

SL.

No

Date

Office Notes,

reports, orders or

proceedings or

directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No.2693 of 2022

Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.

Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel

assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi and Mr. M.S. Bhandari,

learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel

with Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief

Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr.

Shivanand

Bhatt,

learned

counsel

for

respondent no.5.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

primarily to seek a writ of quo warranto declaring that

respondent no.4 was disqualified to hold the Office of

Adhyaksh, Zila Panchayat, Rudraprayag. The petitioner

also challenges the order dated 25.10.2022 passed by

respondent no.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Rudraprayag,

whereby the application moved by the petitioner for

rejection of the candidature of respondent no.4 was

turned down.

The present petition is barred by law. Article 243-O

(b) specifically provides that notwithstanding anything in

the Constitution, “no election to any Panchayat shall be

called in question except by an election petition presented

to such authority and in such manner as is provided for

by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.”

Moreover Section 131H (10) of the Uttarakhand

Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 specifically provides that “if

any question arises that any person is legally elected as a

Pramukh,

Up-Pramukh

or

member

of

Kshettra

Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of

Zila Panchayat or not or he is eligible to be such

Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or member of Kshettra

Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of

Zila Panchayat or not then that question shall be

referred to Judge which means District Judge and it

includes any other subordinate Civil Judge nominated on

ad hoc by District Judge under it, in prescribed manner,

2

whose decision shall be binding and final

If Judge decides that any person is not legally

elected as a Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or member of

Kshettra Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or

Member of Zila Panchayat or he is not eligible to be such

Pramukh,

Up-Pramukh

or

member

of

Kshettra

Panchayat or Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of

Zila Panchayat then he shall not remain as a Pramukh,

Up-Pramukh or member of Kshettra Panchayat or

Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Member of Zila Panchayat

from the date of such decision.”

Therefore, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner

to raise the question with regard to the alleged

disqualification of respondent no.4 before the District

Judge concerned. This petition is, therefore, not

maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Before we part with the matter, we wish to express

our complete dismay at the utter lack of competence in

the State’s administration. We have quoted hereinabove

Sub-section 10 of Section 131H of the Uttarakhand

Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

A perusal of the said sub-section shows the

extremely poor drafting of the legislation. The language

used is grammatically incorrect and open to ambiguity.

It is high-time, the State roped in competent officers

in the larger public interest, if necessary, by inviting

experienced officers with proven competence on

deputation.

We direct that this order be placed before the Chief

Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand.

We hope that the appropriate action shall be taken

by the State on an urgent basis.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)

(Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

03.11.2022

SS/SK