HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.2613 of 2024 Smt. Santosh Kumari --Petitioner Versus Smt. Rishu Saini and others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. P.P. Bhatt, learned counsel i/b Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.6. None for other respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is the returned /winning candidate, has put to challenge the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar in Election Petition No.13 of 2022-23, Smt. Rishu Saini v. Smt. Santosh Kumari and others, whereby the learned Prescribed Authority has directed to conduct the enquiry in respect of educational certificates of petitioner herein. 2. Facts in brief are that petitioner contested the election of Gram Pradhan, Gram Sabha Bhogpur and she won the election. The respondent no.1-Smt. Rishu Saini, feeling disgruntled by the election of petitioner –Smt. Santosh Kumari on the post of Pradhan of Gram Sabha, filed Election Petition No.13 of 2022-23 before the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar. In the said election petition, notices were issued to the respondents including the petitioner herein. Before the respondents could have filed their written statement/objection to the election petition, the learned Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15.05.2023, on its own volition and on the basis of averments made in paragraph no.7 of the election petition, directed an 1 enquiry to be conducted by the District Education Officer (DEO), Haridwar in respect of educational certificates of petitioner herein. Pursuant to said order dated 15.05.2023, the enquiry report was submitted by the D.E.O. on 27.06.2023. The said enquiry report was objected to by the petitioner. On the objection made by the petitioner, a fresh enquiry was conducted by DEO, Haridwar and the report was submitted on 23.09.2023. The petitioner again raised an objection to the enquiry report but rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, the enquiry report was submitted vide order dated 20.11.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner moved a revision in the Court of District Judge which was transferred to the Second Additional District Judge and was numbered as Civil Revision No.77 of 2023. The said revision petition was dismissed by learned Second Additional District Judge by order dated 12.03.2024 stating therein that the petitioner may lead her evidence in the election petition. Now, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is contended by Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that such an order of enquiry could not have been directed by the Prescribed Authority/Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar because by doing so, the Election Tribunal has done nothing but directed to collect evidence in favour of loosing candidate Smt. Rishu Saini. It is also submitted by him that the procedure adopted is to receive a written statements from the respondents in the election petition and it is only after the issues could be framed, the parties to the election petition could file/record their evidence. Thus the order impugned cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that against the enquiry report filed by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner only raised her objection on which the further enquiry was conducted and on her request, the 2 Enquiry Officer was changed and even in subsequent enquiry, the further enquiry was done. Thus the petitioner cannot raise any objection at this stage for the enquiry so conducted. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view after perusal of record and hearing learned counsel for the parties that the course adopted by the Prescribed Authority/ Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar is totally against the settled procedure of law as to how the election petition is to be conducted. From a perusal of the orders dated 15.05.2023, 20.11.2023 and 12.03.2024, it is reflected that even before filing the written statement/objection by the respondents in the election petition, such an enquiry order has been passed which could not have been passed by learned Prescribed Authority. It is a settled principle of law that the courts would not act as a party to the proceedings. On this ground of exercise of jurisdiction by the prescribed authority, it reflects that the prescribed authority had become a party to the lis between the parties. 6. In this view of matter, the petition is allowed. The orders, under challenge, are set aside. As the election petition is pending since 2022 before the learned Prescribed Authority, therefore, this Court is under a bounden duty to direct the speedy disposal of the election petition in accordance with law after adopting due process viz. framing the issues, giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. 7. It is clarified that unnecessary adjournments should be avoided in the matter. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.10.2025 Rdang 3