HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2148 of 2025 (M/S) Suresh Kumar ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 6. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 09.07.2025, passed by respondent no.6, the Returning Officer by which the objections filed by the petitioner against the nomination of the respondent no.7, Smt. Shivangi Gangwar, for contesting the election of member Zilla Panchayat, has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.7, Shivangi Gangwar, is not eligible to contest election because she has properties in urban and village areas and in view of the provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (“the Act”), she cannot contest election; she is in a Government Job, as she is working under some corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 6 submits that the petitioner may challenge his rejection in the election petition that may be filed under Section 131(4)(h) of the Act. He further submits that challenge, at this stage, may not be entertained, when the election is already underway, in view of Article 234-O of the Constitution of India. 5. 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 2 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.” 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. The election process is already underway. The challenge to the rejection order is made on the ground of improper rejection. This may be a ground that the petitioner may take in the election petition, in view of Section 131 (4) (h) of the Act. 8. Therefore, at this stage, this petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 23.07.2025 Ravi Bisht