2025:UHC:513 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 123 of 2025 U10UPUth UPU January, 2025 Smt. Shama --Petitioner Versus Shivani Kashyap and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Akshya Pradhan, learned counsel for the caveator Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was elected as ‘Gram Pradhan’. Her election was challenged by respondent No. 1, by filing an Election Petition, which is pending before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. In the said election petition, on an application filed by respondent No. 1, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate requested the District Basic Education Officer to verify the educational certificates submitted by petitioner at the time of her nomination. By the said letter, issued on 22.09.2023, District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar was asked to send verification report by 20.10.2023. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid request, Block Education Officer, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar furnished the desired information to the Election Tribunal vide order dated 02.11.2023. 3. It is stated in the letter that Adarsh Bal Vidhya Mandir, Sahawali, Muzaffarnagar was closed some 12 1 2025:UHC:513 years ago, as such transfer certificate of the petitioner could not be verified. In para 2 of the said letter, Block Education Officer stated that petitioner received education upto 5Pth P standard from Primary School, Bhandoora and she passed out of the said school on 20.05.2009. 4. Petitioner moved an application before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission to cross-examine District Basic Education Officer, Muzzafarnagar. Her application was rejected vide order dated 25.10.2024. Petitioner challenged the order passed by Election Tribunal in a Revision Petition, which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, vide judgment dated 05.12.2024 by holding that the point on which petitioner wants to cross examine the District Basic Education Officer is not relevant as per Section 5 of Evidence Act. 5. These two judgment and orders have been challenged by petitioner in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has now moved an application on 07.01.2025 for permission to cross-examine the Block Education Officer. He submits that this fact has not been disclosed by petitioner in this writ petition. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, as the reasons given by learned Courts below cannot be said to be unsustainable. The point on which petitioner wants to cross examine the officer, has no relvance to the 2 2025:UHC:513 proceedings. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 8. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise objection regarding admissibility of the unsolicited information supplied by Block Education Officer. The application moved by petitioner on 07.01.2025, shall be decided as per law, without being influenced by any observation made by this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 10Pth Mahinder P January, 2025 3 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43 D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.01.11 16:25:35 +05'30'