WPMS/2135/2014 of Dhandesh Uniyal Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2014-09-12
Case number: 2135 of 2014

Parties

WPMS/2135/2014 of Dhandesh Uniyal (PETITIONER)
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (2000)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

WRIT PETITION No. 2135 of 2014 (M/S)

Dhandesh Uniyal ---Petitioner.

State of Uttarakhand and others ---Respondents.

Present : Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4.

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)

Undisputedly, wife of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 contested election of Gram Pradhan of Village Harbertpur, District Dehradun; wherein respondent no. 5 was elected as Gram Pradhan; election petition was filed by the wife of the petitioner, wherein one of the ground is that respondent no. 5 does not belong to O.B.C., therefore, his nomination ought to have been rejected since he is not competent to contest election of Gram Pradhan against the reserved O.B.C. seat; such Election Petition is still pending disposal.

Now, the petitioner wants to take shortcut by abusing the process of law seeking mandamus to the authorities to hold inquiry about the caste of respondent no. 5 and to cancel his O.B.C. certificate and to declare respondent no. 5 wrongly and illegally elected.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Consumer Education and Research Society vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2009 (9) S.C.C. 648, in paragraph no. 74, has held, if the Returning Officer accepts the nomination and if no Election Petition is filed challenging the election, then he/she would continue as Member in spite of the disqualification.

In my considered opinion, if nomination paper is accepted considering respondent no. 5 belongs to O.B.C., he can be removed from the office of the elected Gram Pradhan only by way of Election Petition and he cannot be removed on the basis of inquiry on the administrative side saying that in fact he does not belong to O.B.C.

Therefore, authorities have rightly declined to hold inquiry against Respondent No. 5 during the pendency of the Election Petition.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Avneet/

(Alok Singh, J.) 12.09.2014