HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1907 of 2025 Anil Piwal @ Anil Kumar ......Petitioner Versus District Magistrate Dehradun and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 11.06.2025 passed under Section 193 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) by the respondent no.1/ the District Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action under Section 193 of the act is to be taken by the Prescribed Authority. He submits that by virtue of the notification dated 09.07.2017 of the State of Uttarakhand under Section 193 (2) of the Act, District Panchayati Raj Adhikari is the Prescribed Authority, and under Section 193 (3) of the Act, the District Magistrate is the Appellate Authority. He submits that the order has been passed by the District Magistrate, who cannot be a Prescribed Authority under Section 193 of the Act. Therefore, the order is bad. 2 4. Learned State counsel would submit that, in fact, the order has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this court in its order dated 11.12.2024 in WPPIL No. 189 of 2024, Elam Singh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”) by which, this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner therein to make representation to the District Magistrate, Dehradun with a further direction that in case such a representation is made, the District Magistrate, Dehradun shall look into the matter and take a decision as per law. It is argued that in compliance of the order passed by the court in the first petition, the District Magistrate has passed the said order dated 11.06.2025. 5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court in the first petition has directed the District Magistrate, Dehradun to take decision as per law, and the law as stipulated under Sections 193 (2) and 193 (3) of the Act makes provision of the authority, who can act under those respective sections. It is stated that under Section 193 (2) of the act, the District Panchayati Raj Adhikari is the Prescribed Authority. 6. Learned State counsel admits this position. He would submit that this order may be quashed, but liberty may be given to the respondent no.1/ the District Magistrate, Haridwar to direct the Prescribed Authority to proceed in the matter as per the provisions of Section 193 of the Act. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 8. The impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is set aside. 3 9. However, the respondent no.1/the District Magistrate, Haridwar shall be at liberty to direct the Prescribed Authority under Section 193 of the Act to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.07.2025 Jitendra