Uttarakhand HC stays disqualification of Panchayat poll candidate in Tehri

A division bench of the Uttarakhand high court ordered the returning officer to allow the candidate to participate in the ongoing panchayat election

Dehradun: The Uttarakhand high court has stayed the disqualification of a panchayat poll candidate from Tehri district and ordered the returning officer to allow the candidate to participate in the ongoing panchayat election.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Seeta Devi after her nomination to contest from Bhutsi village in Tehri district for the post of Zila Panchayat member was rejected. (Representative photo)

A division bench of chief justice G. Narendar and justice Alok Mahra was hearing a petition filed by Seeta Devi after her nomination to contest from Bhutsi village in Tehri district for the post of Zila Panchayat member was rejected based on a questionable “no dues certificate” issued from her bank.

“There shall be a stay of the cancelled list so far as it relates to the petitioner, and further there shall be an interim direction, directing the returning officer to allot a symbol to the petitioner and print the name of the petitioner in the ballot papers and permit her to participate in the election process in respect of ward number five, Bhutsi Panchayat (in Tehri district),” the HC said on Wednesday, after hearing the arguments of Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari, and Ayush Pokhriyal, representing the petitioner, and Sanjay Bhatt, who appeared for the state election commission (EC).

The court said the returning officer had rejected the petitioner’s nomination after the only other candidate contesting alleged that Devi’s “no dues certificate seems to be fake.”

Criticising the returning officer for “blatantly and arbitrarily” concluding the certificate was fake “even without an inquiry with the co-operative bank, or any expert opinion,” the bench said, “Prima facie, it appears that the returning officer has acted in a patently illegal manner, probably to influence the election of the other candidate.”

“The returning officer initially objected to the certificate, alleging it was not issued by the bank’s secretary, despite no rules or regulations supporting this stance. The petitioner subsequently obtained another certificate from the bank, issued by the secretary, stating no loans were granted and no amounts are due. Despite producing the certificate issued a second time, the nomination was still rejected, leaving the objector as the sole candidate,” the bench added.

Negi argued that no formal rejection order was passed—only that the petitioner’s name was placed in the list of rejected candidates. The court replied that it “cannot turn a blind eye to these apparent patent illegalities, which appear to be premeditated and motivated and in utter disregard of the law of the land.”

Citing Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, which pertains to questioning Panchayat elections, the court clarified that the present writ petition questions the “per se illegal rejection of the nomination of the petitioner, for which there is no efficacious remedy,” and that the relief sought is “in furtherance of the elections and not in detriment of the election.”

The high court has also sought the immediate intervention of the state election commissioner to ensure appropriate instructions are issued to returning officers to prevent such illegalities in the future.