Pet it ioner v. Dist rict Magist rat e, Haridwar Ors

child of t he pet it ioner, nam ely, Ms. Mahira was born aft er t he cut - off dat e i.e. 25.7.2019. There was also a finding t hat t hird child of t he pet it ioner was born on 11.9.2019. Based on t he finding ret urned in t hose enquiries, Prescribed Aut horit y/ SDM passed an order on 11.7.2024, declaring t he pet it ioner as disqualified for holding t he O/ o Pradhan. Pet it ioner challenged t he order passed by Prescribed Aut horit y in an appeal, which was dism issed by Chief Developm ent Officer, Haridwar, vide order dat ed 13.8.2024. Aft er dism issal of pet it ioner’s appeal, a show cause not ice was issued t o her by Dist rict Magist rat e, Haridwar on 16.8.2024 and aft er hearing her version, an order was passed under Sect ion 138( 1) ( d) ( iii) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016 on 27.8.2024, whereby she was rem oved from t he O/ o Pradhan. Thus feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court by filing t hese t wo separat e writ pet it ions. I n Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2291 of 2024, pet it ioner has challenged t he order whereby she was disqualified under Sect ion 8( 5) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016. I n Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2346 of 2024, pet it ioner challenged t he dat ed 3

27.8.2024, whereby she was rem oved from t he O/ o Pradhan. Since com m on quest ions of fact s and law are involved in bot h writ pet it ions, t herefore, t hese are being heard and decided by t his com m on j udgm ent .

4. Learned Counsel t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat show cause not ice was not given t o pet it ioner by t he Prescribed Aut horit y and enquiry report was also not supplied t o her. He furt her subm it s t hat opport unit y t o cross- exam ine t he wit nesses was also not given t o her.

5. Mr. Arvind Vashist ha, learned Senior Counsel appearing t he com plainant Alij aan, however, subm it s t hat pet it ioner was given full opport unit y t o part icipat e in t he proceedings; she was heard in bot h enquiries and her st at em ent s were also recorded and considered by t he Enquiry Officers. Learned Senior Counsel t he com plainant point s out t hat before t he Enquiry Officers, pet it ioner adm it t ed t hat she has t hree living children, however her st and was t hat t he t hird child was born on 11.2.2019 and not on

11.9.2019, as alleged by t he com plainant . Mr. Vashist ha has drawn at t ent ion of t his Court t o t he order passed by t he Prescribed Aut horit y, Haridwar, which is on record as Annexure- 1 t o t he Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2291 of 2024, where report subm it t ed Block Developm ent Officer, Bahadrabad has been reproduced in ext enso. Block Developm ent Officer has in fact referred t o Birt h and Deat h Regist er m aint ained by t he com pet ent 4 aut horit y, and based on t he said regist er, a finding was ret urned t hat Ent ry No. 11 in t he regist er is in ( 3 rd child of respect of birt h of Ms. Mahira pet it ioner) on 11.9.2019. Mr. Vashist ha furt her subm it s t hat t he fact t hat t he t hird child of t he pet it ioner was born on 11.9.2019 is proved from various ot her docum ent s, nam ely, Take- Hom e Rat ion Card, I noculat ion Card issued t o pregnant / lact at ing wom en by Asha Karyakart i and Tracker App of Child Developm ent Depart m ent of t he St at e Governm ent , which conclusively proves t hat Ms. Mahira was born aft er t he cut - off dat e. Mr. Vashist ha furt her subm it s t hat even t hough pet it ioner m anaged t o procure a birt h cert ificat e in respect of her t hird child Ms. Mahira, in which her dat e of birt h was shown as 11.2.2019, however t he said cert ificat e is not corroborat ed by any ent ry in t he Birt h and Deat h Regist er, consequent ly t he Prescribed Aut horit y recom m ended for cancellat ion of t he birt h cert ificat e, issued in favour of Ms. Mahira. He furt her subm it s t hat a cert ificat e can only be issued based on a ent ry m ade in t he birt h regist er and in t he absence of any ent ry, if som e cert ificat e is issued, t hat would be a nullit y in t he eyes of law.

6. Learned Counsel t he pet it ioner, however, subm it s t hat concerned Block Developm ent Officer did not supply copy of t he incrim inat ing docum ent s relied upon against t he pet it ioner and, t herefore, enquiry farce. He furt her subm it s t hat com plaint was not support ed by any affidavit and, t herefore, t he enquiry was 5 held in violat ion of procedure prescribed in UP Panchayat Raj ( Rem oval of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Mem bers) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

7. The subm ission m ade by learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner is bereft of m erit . As per Sect ion 8( 5) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016, whenever a quest ion arises as t o whet her a person has becom e subj ect t o a disqualificat ion m ent ioned in t he Act , such quest ion has t o be referred t o Prescribed Aut horit y for decision. Prescribed Aut horit y not only called report s from Tehsildar and Block Developm ent Officer but also provided personal hearing t o pet it ioner, even t hough Sect ion 8( 5) of t he Act is silent regarding such hearing. Prescribed Aut horit y has considered all relevant aspect s wit h an open m ind and has considered t he defence t aken by t he pet it ioner in right perspect ive.

8. Pet it ioner relied upon a birt h cert ificat e for cont ending t hat her t hird child was born aft er t he cut - off dat e, however t hat cert ificat e was issued t o t he pet it ioner wit hout any corresponding ent ry in t he birt h regist er, while anot her ent ry in t he birt h regist er shows t hat t hird child was born t o t he pet it ioner on 11.9.2019. Thus t he Prescribed Aut horit y was j ust ified in disbelieving t he st and t aken by t he pet it ioner t hat t he t hird child was born on 11.2.2019. Thus no prej udice was caused t o t he pet it ioner she was reasonable opport unit y of defending herself before t he Prescribed Aut horit y also, even t hough t he Prescribed Aut horit y was required t o look int o t he 6 quest ion as t o whet her pet it ioner suffered any disqualificat ion on account of birt h of her t hird child.

9. For t he aforesaid reasons, enquiry report if not supplied t o pet it ioner also becom es inconsequent ial, as she did not suffer any prej udice on t hat count .

10. From t he subm issions m ade on behalf of pet it ioner, it is apparent t hat pet it ioner was well aware about t he allegat ion m ade against her in t he com plaint and she defended her posit ion by cont ending t hat her t hird child was born before t he cut - off dat e. She led evidence in support of her st and, however she could not subst ant iat e her st and t hat t hird child was born before t he cut - off dat e. Findings ret urned by Prescribed Aut horit y are based on sound principles of law. A birt h cert ificat e is valid when it is support ed by corresponding ent ry in t he relevant regist er. A birt h cert ificat e, if issued wit hout corresponding ent ry t he relevant regist er, is a nullit y and no credence can be given t o such a cert ificat e. Thus no case is m ade out for int erfering wit h t he order passed by t he Prescribed Aut horit y, which is referable t o Sect ion 8( 5) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016.

11. Learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner t hen cont ended t hat com plaint was not support ed by affidavit . He furt her subm it t ed t hat enquiry was held in violat ion of provisions cont ained in UP 7 Panchayat Raj ( Rem oval of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Mem bers) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

12. Learned St at e Counsel, however, subm it s t hat t he order passed under Sect ion 8( 5) read wit h Sect ion 138( 1) ( d) ( iii) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016 cannot be challenged on t he ground t hat provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules were not followed, as held by t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025 and Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 840 of 2024. Learned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat all ot her issues raised by t he pet it ioner have been dealt wit h by t his Court in t he aforesaid writ pet it ions and t hose issues are no longer res int egra.

13. This Court subst ance t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. The quest ion whet her an order passed under Sect ion 8( 5) read wit h Sect ion 138( 1) ( d) ( iii) of Ut t arakhand Panchayat i Raj Act , 2016 can be challenged on t he ground of infract ion of U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules has been answered by t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025 and Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 840 of 2024. Ot her issues raised by t he pet it ioner in t hese writ pet it ions have also been considered in det ail in t he j udgm ent s rendered in aforesaid writ pet it ions.

14. For t he aforesaid reasons, t his Court do not find any scope for int erference wit h t he orders im pugned in t hese writ pet it ions. Bot h writ pet it ions 8 are liable t o be dism issed and are, accordingly, dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 1 1 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab1 98d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6 FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 9