UKHC010206882025 2026:UHC:6667-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 31st July, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 1116 OF 2025 Mohani Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Sri G.D. Kandpal, learned Additional Advocate General with Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Ridhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Sri Devashish Rana, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. JUDGMENT : (PER: SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the election of respondent No. 5 as Gram Pradhan of Village Bungidhar, Tehsil Bhikiyasain, District Almora, Uttarakhand. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Authorities to declare the election of respondent No. 5 as illegal, void, and unconstitutional and in violation of the Representation of Peoples Act and the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, and for holding enquiry against respondent No. 5. UKHC010206882025 2026:UHC:6667-DB 2 2. Respondent No. 5 was declared elected as Gram Pradhan of Village Bungidhar, Tehsil Bhikiyasain, District Almora, Uttarakhand in the panchayat elections held in the year, 2025. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 is registered as a voter from two different Constituencies, namely (1) Bungidhar and (2) Sarojininagar, Lucknow. It is stated that likewise, there were 62 other voters, who were also registered as voters in other Constituencies. This, according to the petitioner, is not permissible as per Section 9(7) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 as well as the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the instant petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is barred by Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, read with Section 131-H(1) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. 5. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution provides that 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. 6. Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which is the relevant State Legislation prescribes that election of Pradhan shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be UKHC010206882025 2026:UHC:6667-DB 3 prescribed. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 131-H specifically provides that any failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder would be a ground to challenge the election by way of election petition. 7. The same being the ground in the present case, the petitioner has a remedy of filing election petition. In view of the same and the constitutional bar, we decline to examine the challenge in the present petition. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedy, as may be available to her. 9. All pending applications stand dismissed accordingly. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 31st July, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb 1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC617 9B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.08.03 17:05:52 +05'30'