AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2026 passed in WPMS No.2187 of 2026 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 and 3 to immediately initiate inquiry against respondent no.4 and to declare her election as member of Kshettra Panchayat as null and void in view of the fact that her husband has been representing himself as member of the Kshettra Panchayat in place of respondent no.4. The said plea was based on a banner in which there is picture of husband of respondent no.4 and which describes him as member of the Kshettra Panchayat.
The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the aforesaid misrepresentation by husband of respondent no.4, respondent no.4 should be declared disqualified under Section 53(1)(p) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 which reads as follows:
“53. Disqualifications for membership
of Kshettra Panchayat.-(1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected as and for being a member of a Kshettra Panchayat [Gram panchayat or Zila Panchayat), if he-
(p)In place of women member/ Pramuks/ senior Pramukh/ junior Up Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, if her husband or other family members or relative shall preside the meetings and discharged the duties of Kshet-tra Panchayat and declared faulty then said women and concerning per-son who is presiding meetings and discharged the duties, both shall be disqualified for forthcoming general election of three level of Panchayat.”
Under clause (p) a woman member of Kshettra Panchayat would stand disqualified if her husband presides over any meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat or discharges the duties of Kshettra Panchayat.
The learned Single Judge has held that there is no evidence that husband of respondent no.4 had presided over any meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat or discharged any of her duties. The mere fact that he described himself as member of the Kshettra Panchayat, would not attract the disqualification clause. Therefore, the relief claimed by the appellant for declaring respondent no.4 as disqualified from being member of the Kshettra Panchayat has not been granted.
We fully agree with the view of the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid alleged misrepresentation does not fall within the clutches of Clause (p) of sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, therefore, on the said ground respondent no.4 could not be disqualified.
Accordingly, we find no merits in the appeal. The same is dismissed, however, this is without prejudice to the right of the appellant to initiate any other proceedings against respondent no.4 or her husband if permissible under the law.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.