HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2090 of 2025 Chhavi Kandpal ......Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. and Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent no.4. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The challenge in this petition has been made to order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the respondent no. 4, the Election Officer, by which the objections submitted by the petitioner against the nomination of the respondent no.5 Smt. Bela Tolia for contesting election of Village Pradhan has been rejected. 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 the respondent 5 is not eligible to contest the election of Village Pradhan in accordance with the law. The petitioner had filed objection against the nomination of the respondent no.5, Smt. Bela Tolia, but it has wrongly been rejected by the impugned order. It is argued that the nomination paper of the respondent no.5 Bela Tolia has been improperly accepted. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition allowed. 2 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the objection 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 submits 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 basis of improper acceptance of the nomination of the respondent no.5 Bela Tolia. 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- 3 (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.” 8. The election process is already underway. The petitioner claims that the nomination of the respondent no.5 Bela Tolia has wrongly been accepted. The objection of the petitioner has been rejected. This may a ground that the petitioner may take in 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