HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2094 of 2025 Bachuli Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. and Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 to 6. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the respondent no.5, the Returning Officer, Block Okhalkanda, Nainital, by which the nomination of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected contesting election of member Kshetra Panchayat. The petitioner has also sought other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of submission of the nomination papers , the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents, which is clear by Annexure 2. But, it is argued that in the rejection order, it is recorded that the documents were incomplete. It argued that, in fact, the documents were lost while in the custody of the respondents, therefore, the rejection order is bad in the eye of law. While setting aside the impugned order, an inquiry needs to be conducted in the matter. 2 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the nomination of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. At this stage, the writ petition may not be entertained in view of the Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the petitioner may now file election petition in view of Section 131 (4) (h) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”) on the ground of rejection of the nomination. 6. Article 243-O clause (b) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- “243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution.- (a) ................................................................................ (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” 7. Section 131 (4) (h) of the Act reads as follows:- “(h) (1) The election of a person, Chairman or as members of a Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as a Panch shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground; Provided that the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, (ii) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder.” 3 8. The election process is already underway. The challenge to the rejection order is made on the ground of improper rejection. This may a ground that the petitioner may take in the election petition, in view of Section 131 (4) (h) of the Act. 9. Therefore, at this stage, this petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.07.2025 Jitendra