2025:UHC:8840 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2833 of 2024 07 October, 2025 Renu Tomar --Petitioner Versus District Election Officer and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared through video conferencing. Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.2 and 4. None appeared for respondnet Nos.8 and 11 despite service. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application (IA/4/2025) made therefor, is allowed. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Assistant Collector-1st Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (hereinafter referred as ‘Prescribed Authority’) in Election Petition No.03 of 2022-23 Smt. Renu Tomar Vs. Chief Election Officer and Others, whereby, the application dated 16.03.2024 moved by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 1 2025:UHC:8840 3. Petitioner contested the election of Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat Sakoti unsuccessfully. She filed an election petition before the learned Prescribed Authority under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, against the respondents including returned candidate-Km. Vidushi Panwar (respondent No.8). During the course of election petitioner, an application dated 16.03.2024 was moved by the petitioner, which is annexed as annexure No.7 to the writ petition, calling upon the learned Prescribed Authority to direct the respondent No.1-District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Haridwar to produce certain documents enumerated in the said application, which according to the petitioner were necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 4. The said application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority vide impugned order dated 09.09.2024 on the ground that the documents sought by the petitioner were kept in the double lock and that can only be opened by the order of the learned Competent Court/District Judge. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the election petition is being contested before the learned Prescribed Authority under Section 131H of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, therefore, in this case, the Competent Authority is not the District Judge but the Prescribed Authority itself and it is only after the order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, the documents 2 2025:UHC:8840 required by the petitioner can be produced by the learned District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Haridwar in the Election Tribunal i.e. Prescribed Authority. 6. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been disputed by the learned State Counsel, as in the case in hand, the Competent Authority is the Prescribed Authority, where the election petition is pending. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 is bereft of merit and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Prescribed Authority in Election Petition No.03 of 2022-23 Smt. Renu Tomar Vs. Chief Election Officer and Others, is hereby set aside. The Prescribed Authority shall pass a fresh order on the application dated 16.03.2024 moved by the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.10.2025 PN 3