2025:UHC:11194 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PMS/ 2 2 5 6 / 2 0 2 4 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Advocate (Legal aid) for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. According to the petitioner, he participated in Rajya Andolan, which led to creation of Uttarakhand State. As per Government Policy, certain benefits are available to persons identified as Rajya Andolankari. Petitioner made application for his identification as Rajya Andolankari. His application has been rejected by District Magistrate, Dehradun vide order dated 26.04.2024. The reason assigned for rejection of petitioner’s application is that petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of his claim that he participated in Rajya Andolan and he solely relied upon certain newspaper cuttings and some letters issued by other persons. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by District Magistrate dated 26.04.2024. State Government has issued Government Order on 22.10.2008 in which the parameters for identifying Rajya Andolankari have been laid down, which are as follows: i) LIU Report ii) Other police documents including daily diary iii) FIR iv) Medical Report v) Such other documents authenticity whereof is 2025:UHC:11194 verified by District Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to two news items which are enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 5. In the first news item, petitioner is reported to have made a statement that the firing incident in Khatima, Mussoorie and Muzafarnagar is an attack on freedom of press. 6. In the second news item, presence of petitioner is shown in a press meeting, which was presided over by one Mr. Satya Prakash Malviya. 7. Except these two news reports, no other material was produced by petitioner in support of his claim that he participated in the Rajya Andolankari movement. 8. Since the field is covered by Government order and anyone who does not meet the parameters set out in the Government Order, cannot claim identification as Rajya Andolankari as of right, the District Magistrate was, therefore, right in applying the parameters while testing the eligibility of the petitioner for identification as Rajya Andolankari. 9. Thus, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned rejection order. 10. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.12.2025 Mahinder/ 2025:UHC:11194