High Court · 2025

Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1148 of 2025, she has challenged order dat ed 11.4.2025 passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Haridwar under Sect ion 138 ( 1) ( d) ( iii) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act and consequent ial order passed by Dist rict Panchayat i Raj Officer, Haridwar; and in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1819 of 2024, pet it ioner has challenged orders dat ed 12.04.2023 & 31.05.2024 passed by Prescribed Aut horit y and Appellat e Aut horit y respect ively. 4

10. Learned senior counsel t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat as per Sect ion 8 ( 1) ( q) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016, t he qualificat ion required in respect of wom en candidat es is m iddle/ 8 t h st andard; while, for general cat egory candidat es, t he qualificat ion prescribed is High School/ 10 t h st andard. He subm it s t hat pet it ioner passed 8 t h st andard from Dr. Raj endra Prasad Junior High School, Saharanpur and she relied upon t he cert ificat es issued by t he said school in her nom inat ion papers, and pet it ioner is not aware how t he nam e of t he school was changed in t he nom inat ion papers, however, when a point ed query was put t o learned senior counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner t hat in her affidavit filed along wit h nom inat ion papers, pet it ioner had m ent ioned t hat she had passed 9 t h st andard from HAV I nt er College, Saharanpnur and t he affidavit is duly signed by t he pet it ioner and she has not disowned her signat ure on t he affidavit , eit her in her reply t o t he show cause not ice or in t he writ pet it ion, t herefore, pet it ioner would be bound by her st at em ent m ade on oat h before t he Ret urning Officer, t hen he was clueless and could not give any sat isfact ory reply. 5

11. Learned senior counsel appearing t he pet it ioner t hen subm it s t hat as per t he St at ut e, t he issue of disqualificat ion is required t o be decided by Prescribed Aut horit y, him self, however, he erred in relying upon t he report subm it t ed by Dist rict I nspect or of Schools, Saharanpur.

12. The said subm ission is devoid of m erit . Sect ion 8 ( 5) of t he Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act provides t hat whenever a quest ion arises as t o whet her a person has becom e subj ect t o any disqualificat ion, such quest ion shall be referred t o t he Prescribed Aut horit y and his decision shall be final subj ect t o result of t he appeal, as m ay be prescribed.

13. The quest ion whet her pet it ioner was a bonafide st udent of som e school in St at e of Ut t ar Pradesh, as described in her nom inat ion papers, could not have been independent ly ascert ained by t he Prescribed Aut horit y, t herefore, calling a report from t he aut horit y com pet ent t o give expert opinion on t he m at t er cannot be fault ed, especially when t here is no prohibit ion in t he St at ut e against calling such report . Whet her an educat ional inst it ut ion was recognized at t he relevant point or whet her a person was bonafide st udent of a recognized school are t he issues, which 6 can be appropriat ely dealt wit h by t he aut horit ies of educat ion depart m ent , who have st at ut ory powers t o regulat e t he funct ioning of educat ional inst it ut ions, bot h Governm ent and Governm ent Aided. Adm it t edly, Dist rict I nspect or of Schools exercises regulat ory powers under U.P. I nt erm ediat e Educat ion Act , 1921, t herefore, t o have a definit e opinion on t he issue of educat ional qualificat ion of t he pet it ioner, Prescribed Aut horit y was j ust ified in calling report from a st at ut ory aut horit y, i.e., Dist rict I nspect or of Schools.

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner t hen subm it t ed t hat wrongful accept ance of nom inat ion papers is a valid ground for challenging elect ion in an elect ion pet it ion, t herefore, t he com plaint ought not have been ent ert ained and t he com plainant should have been relegat ed t o t he rem edy of elect ion pet it ion and t he power available under Sect ion 138 ( 1) ( d) ( iii) cannot be invoked for rem oving t he pet it ioner from t he office of Pradhan. He furt her subm it s t hat t he com plaint m ade against t he pet it ioner was not support ed by an affidavit , t herefore, cognizance could not have been t aken on a com plaint , which was not verified by affidavit . 7

15. Learned St at e Counsel, however, subm it s t hat t hese cont ent ions were considered and decided against pet it ioner in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 840 of 2024 and Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025. I n WPMS No. 2940 of 2025, t his Court has held t hat The Ut t ar Pradesh Panchayat Raj ( Rem oval of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Mem bers) Enquiry Rules, 1997 were fram ed by St at e of Ut t ar Pradesh t o give effect t o provision cont ained in Sect ion 95 ( 1) ( g) of Ut t ar Pardesh Panchayat Raj Act , 1947, which provided for rem oval of Pradhan, Up- Pradhan or Mem ber of a Gram Panchayat , aft er enquiry held in such m anner, as m ay be ‘prescribed’.

16. Sect ion 8( 5) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , however, does not provide for any enquiry. No m ode of enquiry is prescribed in Sect ion 8( 5) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act and t he Prescribed Aut horit y is free t o t ake decision on t he reference. Under Sect ion 95( 1) ( g) of Ut t ar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act , t he person, aut horized t o hold enquiry and t he m ode of enquiry would be such as prescribed by t he Rules

17. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. Since ot her issues 8 raised by learned senior counsel for t he pet it ioner were considered and decided in j udgm ent rendered in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 840 of 2024 and Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025, t herefore, t hey are not separat ely being dealt wit h here and are answered accordingly.

18. Since pet it ioner relied upon t he educat ional cert ificat es issued by HAV I nt er College in her nom inat ion papers, t herefore, she cannot be perm it t ed t o change her st and by subm it t ing t hat she st udied from a different school, nam ely Dr. Raj endra Prasad Junior High School, Saharanpur. The orders passed by Prescribed Aut horit y and t he Appellat e Aut horit y t herefore call for no int erference.

19. Thus, t he challenge t o t he order passed by Dist rict Magist rat e and Dist rict Panchayat Raj Officer is also wit hout any subst ance. The writ pet it ions accordingly fail and are dism issed. No order as t o cost s. I nt erim orders, if any, st and vacat ed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Dt : 11.12.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f 487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 9