Uttarakhand High Court
Mr. Aditya Singh vs Unknown on 6 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 3622 of 2024
With
WPMS No. 3623 of 2024
WPMS No. 3624 of 2024
WPMS No. 3625 of 2024
WPMS No. 3626 of 2024
WPMS No. 3627 of 2024
WPMS No. 3628 of 2024
WPMS No. 3629 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Yogesh Pacholia,
Mr. Dushyant Mainali and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.S. Rawat,
learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr.
Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the State Election
Commission.
2. Today, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel have argued at length and placed
reliance on a judgment rendered by the Calcutta
High Court in the case of The State Election
Commission and Another Vs. Nimai Roy and Others
decided on 22.02.2024, wherein the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. Jammu
and Kashmir National Conference and Another,
2023 SCC Online SC 1140, in which, the petitioner
has relied upon in the previous date, is also
discussed in paragraph 3.
3. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
Counsel by placing reliance to paragraph 18, 19, 21,
22, 23 and 25 as well as paragraph 31 of the said
judgment submits that since in the present case
also, the election has been notified, therefore, all
these petitions cannot be entertained and should
be dismissed. Apart from this, Mr. C.S. Rawat, again
reiterated on the previous judgment, which has
been relied upon by the learned Advocate General
i.e. in the case of Boddula Krishnaiah and Another
Vs. State Election Commissioner A.P. and Others,
(1996) 3 SCC 416 as well as the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Election
Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others,
(2000) 8 SCC 216 and submits that the only
remedy, which are available to the petitioner to file
the election petition to challenge the election of
the returned candidate that too after the election
are over. In reference to this, Mr. C.S. Rawat
submits that even in view of Section 100 of
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 if there is any
non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution, Act and rules or order, the same can
only be challenged in a Election Petition by taking a
ground that there is non-compliance with the
provisions with the Constitution or the Act Rules or
order. He further gives the reference of Section 71
of the Municipal Corporation Act, which is pari
material to Section 100 of Representation of
Peoples Act i.e. Section 71(d)(4) which also
provides that any non-compliance with the
provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made
thereunder can be a subject-matter of Election
Petition.
4. In reference to this argument, Mr.
Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance to the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anugrah Narain
Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
(1996) 6 SCC 303, and, particularly, he placed
reliance in paragraph 25 of the judgment and
submits that the argument of Mr. Rawat cannot be
accepted.
5. Apart from this, Mr. Aditya Singh
submits that the allotment of seats in all 45 Nagar
Palika Parishads are contrary to Section 9-A(5) of
the Municipality Act and the allotment should be
done on the basis of the list, which has to be
prepared in the descending order. So far as the
Municipal Corporations are concerned, there are
total 11 Municipal Corporations and Mr. C.S. Rawat
submits that seats in all Municipal Corporation
were done strictly as per the Rules, the copy of
which, is also placed alongwith the counter-
affidavit as Annexure-3.
6. Lastly Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned
counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Gunwanta Pundlik Kale Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2023 0 Supreme (Bom) 2246,
decided on 10.10.2023, and, particularly, he has
placed reliance to paragraph 5, 11 and 12 of the
said judgment.
7. The arguments could not be
concluded. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
Counsel requests that the matter be posted
tomorrow so that he may argue on the remaining
issues, which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
8. Put up this matter tomorrow at 02:00
p.m.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
06.01.2025
Ujjwal