Naveen Kapil vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand and, with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to declare the strike, by the members of the Uttarakhand Lekhpal Sangh, as arbitrary and

illegal; a mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 to 3 to impose restriction under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Service Maintenance Act, 1966 (for

short ‘the 1966 Act’) upon the persons involved in the strike; and a mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 to 3 to make suitable alternative

arrangements for the continuous restoration of services of Patwaris and Lekhpals in preparation of reports for income certificates, and mutation

proceedings, in the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner contends that the strike, resorted to by the Lekhpals, has virtually crippled the administration; it is their function to issue income

certificates to enable those, who belong to the economically backward sections of society, to apply for admissions under the quota prescribed in terms

of the Right to Education Act, 2009; and the State Government has turned a blind-eye to the agitation, instead of taking stringent measures under the

1966 Act.

When the matter came up yesterday, Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, sought time to obtain

instructions.

Today Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit, on instructions, that it is only the Lekhpals,

and not the Patwaris, who are on strike; since these income certificates are to be issued by the Patwaris, the hilly districts, and the hilly areas, of the

State of Uttarakhand are not affected by the strike; in so far as the plain areas of the State of Uttarakhand, where Lekhpals have been authorized to

issue income certificates, are concerned, the State Government has now entrusted this task of issuing income certificates to Tehsildars; and necessary

measures would be taken to ensure that those, who are eligible to be granted such income certificates, are not denied issuance of such certificates,

and the certificates are issued to them before the cut-off date.

While the State Government is always entitled to take action in accordance with law, including the provisions of the 1966 Act, this Court would,

ordinarily, not issue a mandamus to the State Government to exercise its powers in a particular manner. Suffice it to observe that if the strike, as has

been resorted to by the Lekhpals, causes needless inconvenience to the general public, the State Government should make adequate arrangements to

ensure that the grievances of the general public are addressed.

In the light of the submissions now made by Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, we are satisfied that

the petitioner’s apprehension, of income certificates not being issued to those who are eligible, is misplaced.

Leaving it open to those, in whose favour income certificates are not issued before the cut-off date, to avail their judicial remedies, the writ petition

is closed recording the submission of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand that necessary steps have

already been taken to ensure that those, who are eligible, would be granted income certificates before the prescribed cut-off date.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 03.05.2019.