2025:UHC:11075 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL W r it Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2 2 9 1 of 2 0 2 4 Reshma … Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Haridwar & Ors … Respondents With W r it Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2 3 4 6 of 2 0 2 4 Reshma … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal, Deputy AG, with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, for the complainant- respondent. J U D G M E N T Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. In the last election to the O/ o Pradhan, Nagala Khurd, Block Bahadarabad in District Haridwar, petitioner was declared elected. A complaint was made against her that she is disqualified for being elected as Pradhan in view of provision contained in Section 8(1)(r) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. Section 8(1)(r) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 reads as under: “8 . Disqu alificat ion for m em ber sh ip of Gr am Pan ch ayat .—(1) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed, a Pradhan, Up- Pradhan and member of a Gram Panchayat, if he – (r) He has more than two living children.” 2025:UHC:11075 2 2. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Pinki Devi v. State (WPMS No. 2302 of 2019), has held that disqualification from contesting elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions, in terms of Section 8(1)(r) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, would apply only to cases where persons having two children or more have a third child or more after 25.7.2019. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below: “92. In order to sustain Section 8(1)(r), an appropriate reading down of the said provision to save it from the vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness should be resorted to. If it is not so read down, then Section 8(1)(r) would obviously fail on the touchstone of reasonableness, and would become void and inoperative. (Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society v. Registrar of Societies and Others[ 74] ). Section 8(1)(r) can be read down by giving it prospective application, meaning thereby that the disqualification under the said provision can be held to apply only to those who give birth to a third child or more after 25.07.2019 when Section 8(1)(r), inserted by the 2019 Amendment to the 2016 Act, came into force. The said provision can, thereby, be saved from being declared unconstitutional. It is only by so reading down Section 8(1)(r), and applying it prospectively from the date the 2019 amendment Act came into force on 25.07.2015, can the said provision be saved from unconstitutionality. 93. We, therefore, read down Section 8(1)(r) and declare that the disqualification from contesting elections to Panchayati Raj Institution, in terms of the said provision, would apply only to cases where persons, having two children 2025:UHC:11075 3 or more, have a third child or more after 25.07.2019. The said provision shall not be understood as disqualifying those who already have three or more children before 25.07.2019.” 3. Based on the complaint made against the petitioner, separate enquiries were ordered, one held by Tehsildar and another by Block Development Officer, Bahadrabad. In both enquiries, the finding returned was that the third child of the petitioner, namely, Ms. Mahira was born after the cut-off date i.e. 25.7.2019. There was also a finding that third child of the petitioner was born on 11.9.2019. Based on the finding returned in those enquiries, Prescribed Authority/ SDM passed an order on 11.7.2024, declaring the petitioner as disqualified for holding the O/ o Pradhan. Petitioner challenged the order passed by Prescribed Authority in an appeal, which was dismissed by Chief Development Officer, Haridwar, vide order dated 13.8.2024. After dismissal of petitioner’s appeal, a show cause notice was issued to her by District Magistrate, Haridwar on 16.8.2024 and after hearing her version, an order was passed under Section 138(1)(d)(iii) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 on 27.8.2024, whereby she was removed from the O/ o Pradhan. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by filing these two separate writ petitions. In Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 2291 of 2024, petitioner has challenged the order whereby she was disqualified under Section 8(5) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. In Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 2346 of 2024, petitioner has challenged the order dated 2025:UHC:11075 4 27.8.2024, whereby she was removed from the O/ o Pradhan. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that show cause notice was not given to petitioner by the Prescribed Authority and enquiry report was also not supplied to her. He further submits that opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was also not given to her. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant Alijaan, however, submits that petitioner was given full opportunity to participate in the proceedings; she was heard in both enquiries and her statements were also recorded and considered by the Enquiry Officers. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant points out that before the Enquiry Officers, petitioner admitted that she has three living children, however her stand was that the third child was born on 11.2.2019 and not on 11.9.2019, as alleged by the complainant. Mr. Vashistha has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Haridwar, which is on record as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 2291 of 2024, where report submitted by Block Development Officer, Bahadrabad has been reproduced in extenso. Block Development Officer has in fact referred to Birth and Death Register maintained by the competent 2025:UHC:11075 5 authority, and based on the said register, a finding was returned that Entry No. 11 in the register is in respect of birth of Ms. Mahira (3rd child of petitioner) on 11.9.2019. Mr. Vashistha further submits that the fact that the third child of the petitioner was born on 11.9.2019 is proved from various other documents, namely, Take-Home Ration Card, Inoculation Card issued to pregnant/ lactating women by Asha Karyakarti and Tracker App of Child Development Department of the State Government, which conclusively proves that Ms. Mahira was born after the cut-off date. Mr. Vashistha further submits that even though petitioner managed to procure a birth certificate in respect of her third child Ms. Mahira, in which her date of birth was shown as 11.2.2019, however the said certificate is not corroborated by any entry in the Birth and Death Register, consequently the Prescribed Authority recommended for cancellation of the birth certificate, issued in favour of Ms. Mahira. He further submits that a certificate can only be issued based on a entry made in the birth register and in the absence of any entry, if some certificate is issued, that would be a nullity in the eyes of law. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that concerned Block Development Officer did not supply copy of the incriminating documents relied upon against the petitioner and, therefore, enquiry is farce. He further submits that complaint was not supported by any affidavit and, therefore, the enquiry was 2025:UHC:11075 6 held in violation of procedure prescribed in UP Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 7. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. As per Section 8(5) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, whenever a question arises as to whether a person has become subject to a disqualification mentioned in the Act, such question has to be referred to Prescribed Authority for decision. Prescribed Authority not only called reports from Tehsildar and Block Development Officer but also provided personal hearing to petitioner, even though Section 8(5) of the Act is silent regarding such hearing. Prescribed Authority has considered all relevant aspects with an open mind and has considered the defence taken by the petitioner in right perspective. 8. Petitioner relied upon a birth certificate for contending that her third child was born after the cut-off date, however that certificate was issued to the petitioner without any corresponding entry in the birth register, while another entry in the birth register shows that third child was born to the petitioner on 11.9.2019. Thus the Prescribed Authority was justified in disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioner that the third child was born on 11.2.2019. Thus no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and she was given reasonable opportunity of defending herself before the Prescribed Authority also, even though the Prescribed Authority was required to look into the 2025:UHC:11075 7 question as to whether petitioner suffered any disqualification on account of birth of her third child. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, enquiry report if not supplied to petitioner also becomes inconsequential, as she did not suffer any prejudice on that count. 10. From the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner was well aware about the allegation made against her in the complaint and she defended her position by contending that her third child was born before the cut-off date. She led evidence in support of her stand, however she could not substantiate her stand that third child was born before the cut-off date. Findings returned by Prescribed Authority are based on sound principles of law. A birth certificate is valid when it is supported by corresponding entry in the relevant register. A birth certificate, if issued without corresponding entry in the relevant register, is a nullity and no credence can be given to such a certificate. Thus no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, which is referable to Section 8(5) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that complaint was not supported by affidavit. He further submitted that enquiry was held in violation of provisions contained in UP 2025:UHC:11075 8 Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997. 12. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the order passed under Section 8(5) read with Section 138(1)(d)(iii) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 cannot be challenged on the ground that provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules were not followed, as held by this Court in Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 840 of 2024. Learned State Counsel further submits that all other issues raised by the petitioner have been dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and those issues are no longer res integra. 13. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. The question whether an order passed under Section 8(5) read with Section 138(1)(d)(iii) of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 can be challenged on the ground of infraction of U.P. Panchayat Raj Enquiry Rules has been answered by this Court in Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 2940 of 2025 and Writ Petition (M/ S) No. 840 of 2024. Other issues raised by the petitioner in these writ petitions have also been considered in detail in the judgments rendered in aforesaid writ petitions. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any scope for interference with the orders impugned in these writ petitions. Both writ petitions 2025:UHC:11075 9 are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 1 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab1 98d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6 FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.22 11:35:10 +05'30'