Rohitash Thakur & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard &

decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 1300 of 2016 are being considered.

According to the petitioners, they participated in Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan. Since the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari were not given to

them, therefore, they filed WPMS No. 2437 of 2013, seeking a direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the process of verification of

petitioners as Rajya Andolankari. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2014 in the light of statement made by learned State

Counsel that if petitioners make representation, the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate in the light of Government Policy. Since the

representation submitted by the petitioners has been rejected by the District Magistrate vide order dated 13.06.2014, therefore, petitioners have again

approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of “certiorariâ€, quashing the office order dated 13.6.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 by

the way of which the authority has refused to identify the petitioner as “Uttarakhand Rajaya Andolankariâ€​.

To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take fresh decision over the representations made by the

petitioners, impartially and in accordance with the selection/identification process adopted by the authorities in case of other similarly situated

persons.â€​

Heard learned Additional C.S.C. and perused the record. A perusal of the order passed by District Magistrate, impugned in the writ petition, reveals

that petitioners could not produce any evidence in support of their claim that they had actively participated in the Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan.

Learned Additional C.S.C. has drawn attention of this Court to Government Order dated 22.10.2008, in which criteria has been laid down for

identification as Rajya Andolankari, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Based on the said document, learned Additional C.S.C.

submits that name of the petitioners does not find mention in the L.I.U. Report or in any other document enumerated in the Government Order dated

22.10.2008. He further submits that, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, the only evidence, which petitioners have in support of their claim, is

a news item published in some local weekly newspaper named as ‘Laghu Bharat’. He submits that such news report cannot be made the basis

for the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari. He further submits that name of none of the petitioners’ figures in the L.I.U. Report or any other

report available with the Police record.

It is not in dispute that, upon identification as Rajya Andolankari, a person becomes entitled to several benefits, monetary or otherwise, therefore,

the State Government, in its wisdom, has laid down certain criteria for identification as Rajya Andolankari. A person, who does not fulfill the criteria as

prescribed in the Government Policy for identification as Rajya Andolankari, cannot claim to be declared as Rajya Andolankari. In the absence of any

evidence in support of their claim, petitioners have no legally enforceable right to be declared as Rajya Andolankari.

In such view of the matter, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted. In the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioners,

District Magistrate was justified in rejecting petitioners’ representation.

Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.