UKHC010149212026 2026:UHC:7577 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2563/2026 Vanshika Choudhary --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents With WPMS/2562/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. K.S. Mehta, Additional CSC for the State. Mr. Gopal K Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Dilshad Hussain, Advocate for respondent No. 5. 2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (MS) No. 2563 of 2026, alone are being considered and discussed. 3. Petitioner was desirous of contesting election of Kashipur Urban Co-operative Bank, which is a primary Co-operative bank as per Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act. She filed nomination for election which reportedly was rejected, although rejection order is not on record. UKHC010149212026 2026:UHC:7577 Petitioner has challenged rejection of her nomination as unjust and illegal. 4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that wrongful rejection or acceptance of nomination papers, is a valid ground for filing election petition. He further submits that Kashipur Urban Co-operative Bank is not getting any financial aid from Central or State Government therefore it is not State within Article 12, as such, writ petition would not be maintainable. 5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for respondents upon Rule 50 of Uttarakhand Rajya Sahkari Samiti Nirwachan Niyamawali, 2018, notified on 27.06.2018. Rule 50(1) provides remedy of election petition. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that against rejection of her nomination, petitioner has remedy under Rule 50 of aforesaid Rules, therefore writ petition would not be maintainable. 7. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.08.2026 Mahinder