Rajendra Singh vs Vipin Kumar & Ors.

The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 59 days. Counsel for the respondents have no objection to condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation application is allowed. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal.

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel (through VC) for respondent No. 1; Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State; and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.04.2026 by which Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1187 of 2026, filed by private respondent No. 1, has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the District Election Officer / District Magistrate to decide the complaint of the writ-petitioner, made against the appellant, regarding his disqualification from holding the post of Member, Zila Panchayat and President, Zila Panchayat, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

The case of the writ-petitioner was that the appellant was disqualified from contesting the election on the post of Member, Zila Panchayat and from being elected as President, Zila Panchayat on account of the fact that he was registered as a voter in the concerned Zila Panchayat as well as in the Municipal Corporation, Roorkee. The writ-petitioner had alleged that although he had filed complaint in this regard in the month of December 2023, but no enquiry was held as contemplated under Section 90(4) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016. Accordingly, learned Single Judge had issued the aforesaid direction.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the aforesaid allegation made by the writ-petitioner, even if admitted, would not result in any disqualification under Section 90 of the Act, nor under any other provision of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It is also his submission that since the allegation relates to alleged disqualification of the writ-petitioner in contesting the election, the dispute can only be raised by way of an election petition. It is further submitted that, in any event, the learned Single Judge ought not to have disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to the appellant.

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner (the contesting respondent herein) very fairly states that he has no objection in case the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the appellant to file counter-affidavit and, thereafter the writ petition is decided.

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has referred to the provisions of Section 138 and Section 8 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act 2016, in trying to support the case of the writ-petitioner. However, he is also not able to explain how the District Election Officer would have any jurisdiction to decide such a complaint after the election has been held. He also has no objection in case the matter is relegated to the Single Judge for deciding the controversy afresh after granting opportunity to the appellant to file counter-affidavit.

Accordingly, as agreed between the parties, the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.04.2026 is hereby set aside. The appellant is granted ten days time to file counter-affidavit to the writ petition. The matter shall thereafter be listed before the writ court for disposal.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.