Anchal Dauriyal v. District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Uttarkashi and others

by the petitioner have already been rejected. To it, learned counsel 2 for the petitioner submits that the decision has not been communicated to the petitioner.

5. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the objection filed by the petitioner is cryptic. It does not touch the merits of the objections. Therefore, he submits that the respondent no.2 may be directed to pass a detailed order on the objections filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that for election, there is a time schedule and the scrutiny is already over and voting is scheduled for tomorrow. Therefore, now Assistant Returning Officer may not be directed to pass another order because it will effect the elections.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the notification for election is already issued and voting is to be done tomorrow. He would submit that in view of the bar, as contained under Section 243(o) of the Constitution of India, the writ petition may not be entertained, as this may delay the election process. He also submits that the challenge to the election of the Block Pramukh may be made under Section 131(h)(1) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”).

8. Article 243(o) reads as follows:- “243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) 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.” 3

9. Section 131(h)(1) of the Act is as follows:- “131. Other provisions related to the electoral.— ………………. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………..... (h)(1) The election of a person, Chairman or as members of a Panchayat shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground; Provided that the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election”

10. In so far as election of Block Pramukh is concern, Section 131H(10) of the Act also makes provisions that if a question arises that any person is legally elected as a Pramukh, then that question shall be referred to Judge, which means, the District Judge, etc.

11. Be it as it may, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not obstructed by any statutory provisions, but there are some restrictions and the guidelines which have already been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. But, in such matters interference may not be made during the election. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that the nomination of the respondent no.5 ought not to have been accepted. She does not belong to the Scheduled Caste Category, under which, she has submitted her nomination form. This Court has discussed the provisions of law in this regard in WPMS No.2234 of 2025, Sri Ram Singh Vs. State Election Commission, Uttarakhand and others, and on 25.07.2025, observed as follows:- “10. In the case of West Bengal State Election Commission and others Vs. Communist Party of India (MARXIST) and others, (2018)18 SCC 141, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of Panchayat Elections and Article 343-O of the Constitution of India. In para 28 and 29, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “28. The Panchayat Elections Act is a complete code in regard to the conduct of the poll and for the resolution of disputes concerning the validity of the election. Article 243-K entrusts the superintendence, direction and control 4 over the conduct of all elections to the panchayats in the State Election Commission. Clause (b) of Article 243-O stipulates thus: “243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral anything matters.—Notwithstanding Constitution— *** (b) 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.” Court. In Boddula 29 Ed. : Para 29 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./57/2018 dated 29-10- 2018. There is merit in the submission that the discipline which is mandated by the provisions of the Constitution and enforced by the enabling State law on the subject must be maintained. Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused by adopting a remedy which is known to law, namely, through an election petition. It is at the trial of an election petition that factual disputes can be resolved on the basis of evidence. This principle has been consistently adhered to in decisions of Krishnaiah, Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416, a three-Judge Bench adverted to the decisions of the in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Constitution Bench Officer, Constituency [N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64 and Hassan in Lakshmi Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman Lakshmi Uzzaman, referring (1985) 4 SCC 689. After to Ponnuswami [N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64, it was observed : (Boddula Krishnaiah case, Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416, SCC pp. 419-20, para 8) Sen v. A.K.M. Namakkal Charan Charan Ponnuswami v. Returning “8. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Officer, Constituency, N.P. Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64, a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the “election”; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the “election”; and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress.” The binding principle must be followed.”

11. Further having considered the law on the field, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal State Election Commission 5 (supra) observed that, “once the election process has commenced, it is trite law that it should not be interdicted mid stage. The electoral process is afforded sanctity in a democracy. That is the reason why in a consistent line of precedent, this Court has insisted upon the discipline of the law being followed so that any challenge to the validity of an election has to be addressed by adopting the remedy of an election petition provided under the governing statute.” This principle of law, as laid down in the case of West Bengal State Election Commission (supra) has further been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa and another Vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and another, (2021)8 SCC 401.

12. In the case of State of Goa (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the provisions of Municipality Elections and the provisions of Section 243-ZG(b), which reads as follows:- “243-ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.—Notwithstanding Constitution,— (a) ……………………………………………………………………; anything (b) no election to any Municipality 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.”

13. A bare reading of Article 243-ZG(b) and Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India makes it abundantly clear that they are similarly worded except interchanging the word ‘Panchayat’ and ‘Municipality’. In the case of State of Goa (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 68.1 of the judgment observed that from the date of notification of the election till the date of the declaration of result a judicial hands-off is mandated by the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG(B). It reads as follows:- “68.1. Under Article 243-ZG(b), no election to any municipality can be called in question except by an election petition presented to a Tribunal as is provided by or under any law made by the legislature of a State. This would mean that from the date of notification of the election till the date of the declaration of result a judicial hands-off is mandated by the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG debarring the writ court under Articles 226 and 227 from interfering once the election process has begun until is over. The constitutional bar operates only during this period. It is therefore a matter of discretion exercisable by a writ court as to whether an interference is called for when the electoral process is “imminent” i.e the notification for elections is yet to be announced.”

14. Court has further held as under:- In the case of State of Goa (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme “68.5. Judicial review of a State Election Commission's order is available on grounds of review of administrative orders. Here again, the writ court must adopt a hands-off policy while the election process is on and interfere either before the process commences or after such process is completed unless interfering with such order subserves and facilitates the progress of the election.””

12. Against improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent no.5, the petitioner may question the election of 6 the respondent no.5. The election is already underway. The voting is to be done tomorrow. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the light of settled legal position, a hands-off approach is to be adopted in the instant matter. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere in the instant writ petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

13. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

13.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5 04686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD 8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE406 99, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA