HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2063 of 2025 Girish Chandra ......Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondent Present: Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner for the position of Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Paatkote, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he intended to contest the election of Village Pradhan of Village Panchayat Paatkote, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital. The petitioner submitted his nomination papers and also gave Rs.750 in cash to the respondent no.7, the Assistant Election Officer (“AEO”) as security which was to be deposited before the Returning Officer. The AEO had assured the petitioner that he has received the amount and he will attach the receipt of amount with the nomination papers and accordingly, he issued a receipt of the nomination papers. But on 07.07.2025, when the petitioner reached in the Office of AEO, his nomination papers were rejected on the ground that he did not deposit the security deposit. He did not submit a receipt 2 of the security deposits alongwith the nomination papers. The petitioner is aggrieved by it. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has in all submitted his nomination papers on time. He submitted the nomination papers to the AEO alongwith Rs.750/- in cash as security deposit. The AEO had then assured the petitioner that he would attach the receipt of the security amount alongwith his nomination papers. On that assurance, the petitioner had left the desk. It is argued that subsequently, on the date of scrutiny i.e. on 07.07.2025, when the petitioner reached, he was informed that his nomination papers have already been rejected because he has not enclosed the security deposit receipt alongwith the nomination papers. It is argued that, in fact, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to remove the defect and the nomination papers cannot be rejected on that technical ground. Reference has been made to the Rule 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans, and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994 (‘the 1994 Rules”). Particularly, reference has been made to sub-Section (2) of it. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has not deposited the security deposit and has not enclosed the receipt of the security deposit alongwith the nomination papers. It is not a technical defect, but it is an error of substantial nature and the nomination papers have rightly been rejected. 6. Rule 17 of the 1994 Rules reads as follows:- “17. Scrutiny of nominations.- (1) On the date and at the time of place appointed for the scrutiny of the nominations the Nirvachan Adhikari shall examine the nomination papers, not already rejected under sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, in the presence of 3 candidates and their Nirvachan Abhikarta, if any, who may be present after giving reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers. (2) The Nirvachan Adhikari may reject any nomination paper on any one or more of the following grounds- (a) that the candidate is not qualified under the Act to be chosen to fill the seat; (b) that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat under Section 5-A of the Act; (c) that there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of Rule 15; or (d) that the signature of the candidate or his proposer is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud. The Nirvachan Adhikari shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect or other error which is not of a substantial character and may for the purposes of removing any such defect or error allow any entry to be corrected in the nomination paper. (3) The Nirvachan Adhikari shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and if the nomination paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (4) At the end of the scrutiny the Nirvachan Adhikari shall announce the names of candidates whose nominations he has accepted and shall prepare a list showing the names in Hindi alphabetical order with particulars as given in their nomination papers. (5) Where all nomination papers have been rejected the Nirvachan Adhikari shall report the fact to the District Magistrate.” 7. The last paragraph of sub- Section (2) of the Section 17 of the 1994 Rules has been referred to. According to which, the nomination papers may not be rejected on any technical defect or other error which is not of a substantial character. 4 8. The question is as to whether the error which was detected on the nomination papers of the petitioner is of a substantive character or not? 9. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attach security deposit receipt alongwith the nomination papers. What is stated is that the petitioner had given the amount in cash. The petitioner ought to have taken a receipt of any amount that was given. Election process has a time schedule and the sanctity attached with every step. It was required to deposit the security deposit and enclose its receipt alongwith the nomination papers, which the petitioner has not done. Deposition of the security deposit may not be termed as a defect of technical nature. It is substantial in character. Therefore, the rejection has rightly been done. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.07.2025 Jitendra