Munni Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others

AFR
Judgement Reserved On: 13.05.2026
Judgement Delivered On: 26.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34527 of 2023
Munni Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bal Mukund Singh, Bharat Singh Pal,
Shivangi Tripathi, Shri Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Narendra Kumar Pandey, C.S.C,
Nisheeth Yadav, Pardeep Kumar,
Prakhar Saran Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar
Yadav, Tarun Agrawal

Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri K.R. Singh along with Sri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel for the State, Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Election Commission and Shri N.K. Pandey, counsel for the respondent no.
6.
2. The counsel(s) for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they
do not propose to file any further affidavits and the writ petition is being
decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the
consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
FACTS
3. The facts of the case as worded in the petition are that the State of Uttar
Pradesh in exercise of powers as conferred therein decided to fill up the
office of Block Pramuk throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh including
Block Pramuk of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur which
was earmarked under OBC (Woman) reservation category. The date of the
nomination of the candidates for election to the office of Pramukh was
08.07.2021 and nomination could be withdrawn by 09.07.2021 and the date
of the election for the office of Pramukh was scheduled on 10.07.2021. As
per the writ petitioner/ Munni Devi filed objections (Paper No. 25C/13)

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
2
against the nomination of Smt. Babli w/o Mem Singh, sixth respondent on
the ground that her name stands recorded in Uttarakhand Legislative
Assembly-25 at Haridwar and Lok Sabha-5 Haridwar at Serial No. 142,
Aryanagar, Jwalapur, U. Bhawan, K.N.-1 and Serial No. 781, Shivalik
Shishu Junior High School, Aryanagar, Uttari Bhawan, Tehsil Haridwar.
Since the name of the sixth respondent found place at both the places i.e.
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh and Haridwar, Uttarakhand, thus, her name be
deleted from one place to contest election to the other place. Then after
scrutiny of the nomination's papers, the nomination of the 6th respondent,
(Smt. Babli W/O Mem Singh) and Kavita W/O Vikash Kumar resident of
Village Dabkaula was rejected due to non-compliance of condition No. 6(A)
of the Directive issued by State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow vide
Letter No. 4169/ Ra. Ni. Aa.-3/P.Ni./53-21/2021 dated 25.07.2021.
4. It is also the case of the petitioner, that due to the rejection of the
nomination of the 6th respondent and Smt. Suman, they raised objection that
their nomination paper cannot be rejected. Assistant Returning Officer/
District Cane Officer, Saharanpur, thereafter wrote a letter dated 09.07.2021
to District Election Officer, Saharanpur, apprising all the factual and the
legal position and found that the objections of the 6th respondent and Smt.
Kavita had no force. The elections were conducted on 10.07.2021 and the
petitioner is claimed to be elected unopposed for the office of Block
Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District, Saharanpur, under OBC
(Women) Reservation Category.
5. The same led to filing of an election petition by Smt. Babli, 6th
respondent, before the District Judge/ Election, Tribunal, Saharanpur, which
was numbered as Election Petition No. 217 of 2021 (Smt. Babli v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and 4 others), seeking relief to the extent that election for the
office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, District Saharanpur be declared
void, and an appropriate directions be issued in that regard against the
defendants in the election petition.
6. On being noticed, the present petitioner filed his written statement and
reply was also filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 being the State of Uttar
Pradesh, through its Collector, Saharanpur, Collectorate, Saharanpur and the
Election Officer, DCO/ Deputy Cane Commissioner, Saharanpur.
7. Vide order dated 03.07.2022, the District Judge/ Election Tribunal,
Saharanpur framed two issues, namely, (a) whether on the basis of the
averments made in the election petition, the uncontested election of the
Opposite Party No. 4 (writ petitioner) and such declaration order dated
10.7.2021 issued by Opposite Party No. 3 (Election Officer / DCO, Ganna

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
3
Bhavan, Saharanpur) could be set aside and the election of the Opposite
Party No. 4 (writ petitioner) can be declared null and void; (b) whether the
present election petition is maintainable as per the averments made by
Opposite Party No. 4 (writ petitioner).
8. The writ petitioner herein who was defendant No. 4 in the election
petition filed an application (34C) along with an affidavit 40-A by which
evidences were adduced before the Election Tribunal. The statement of an
oath of Smt. Babli W/O Mem Singh, sixth respondent was recorded before
the Election Tribunal on 17/25.08.2022. The statement of the petitioner was
also recorded an oath before the Election Tribunal on 31.01.2023.
9. However, vide order dated 20.09.2023, the District Judge/ Election
Tribunal, Saharanpur proceeded to pass the impugned order by which the
election of the Opposite Party No.4 in the election petition/petitioner for the
office of Pramukh of Block Gangoh provisional election area No. 98 was
declared null and void while setting aside the order dated 10.07.2021 passed
by the Election Officer/ DCO, Ganna Bhawan, Saharanpur.
10. Questioning the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the District Judge/
Election Tribunal, Saharanpur setting aside the election of the petitioner, the
office of the Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Saharanpur, the present petition has
been preferred.
11. When the matter was taken up, a preliminary objection came to be raised
by the respondents herein that the present petition is not maintainable,
particularly when, the order in question which is subject matter of challenge
is appealable under Rule 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats
(Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election
Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules 1994') as the
order dated 20.09.2023 comes within the purview of Rule 44 of the 1994,
Rules. The said objection came to be dispelled by this Court vide order dated
27.10.2023 and and interim order came to be passed, restraining the State
Election Commissioner (Panchayat and Local Bodies) State Election
Commission, U.P., Lucknow from notifying the elections in question
without the leave of the Court. Aggrieved against the part of the order
impugned in the petition, the petitioner herein preferred Special Leave
Petition (C) Diary No. 41647 of 2025 (Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and
others), in which on 08.08.2025, the following orders were passed:
"Delay condoned.
Though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, we
appreciate the actual grievance expressed by the learned counsel

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
4
appearing for the petitioner that out of the 5 years of the election term,
nearly 4 years are already over without any adjudication.
In such view of the matter, we request the High Court to make an
endeavour to dispose of Writ-C No.34527/2023, within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
Argument of learned counsel for the writ petitioner
12. Shri K.R. Singh assisted by Shri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for
the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order dated 20.09.2023 passed
by the District Judge/ Election Tribunal, Saharanpur declaring the election of
the petitioner as Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud,
Saharanpur on 10.07.2021 as void cannot be sustained for more than one
reason. Firstly, the election petition itself was not maintainable, particularly,
Chapter VI of the 1994 Rules itself provide for the disputes regarding
election of the Pramukh and Up-Pramukhs, Rule 35 further provides for the
time and the manner of the presenting petitioner, Rule 36 form etc. of the
petitions and Rule 37 relief which may be claimed by the election petitioner
but none of the said provisions in any manner whatsoever provide for filing
of an election petition when a candidate is aggrieved against rejection of his
nomination.
13. Submission is that the principles of benevolent legislation are not
applicable in election matters as strict interpretation is to be resorted to.
Argument is that there happens to be an enactment by the name and the
nomenclature of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961 wherein Section 13 deals with the disqualification for
membership of Kshettra Panchayat and further Section 16 also deals with the
removal of Pramukh/ Up-Pramukh whereas Section 27 also deals with
dispute as to the membership or disqualifications, thus, only those grounds
which are specified in the above noted sections can only be taken into
account for the purposes of challenge by means of election petition and no
other grounds.
14. In nutshell submission is that the Election Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope and permission and has passed
an order which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is also contended
that by passing of the order dated 20.09.2023 declaring the election of the
office of Block Pramukh invalid and void, a vacancy has been arisen that too
on the basis of certain factors which are beyond the scope and the purview of

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
5
election petition.
15. Additionally, it has been argued that the basic reason attributable for
rejection of the nomination of the Smt. Babli, sixth respondent is the fact
that as per Rule 8 of the 1994 Rules, any person who desires to be nominated
as the candidate at an election to the office of the Pramukh shall deliver in
person or through his proposer and seconder nomination form duly filled in
Form-II to the returning officer within the hours of 11 o'clock in the
forenoon and 3'O clock in the afternoon on that date and the place specified
in the notice under Rule 6, and the nomination paper shall be signed by the
candidate and attested himself as assenting to the nomination and also by
one member as proposer and other member as seconder. Argument is, here
though, there happened to be the photograph of the sixth respondent in the
nomination form, but the same was not self-attested, either by the sixth
respondent or by the proposer and seconder. Thus, in view of the provisions
contained under Clause 6(a) of the circular issued by the State Election
Commission, Uttar Pradesh on 05-07-2021, which is mandatory in nature,
rightly, the nomination of the sixth respondent, Smt. Babli, was cancelled.
16. Argument is to the extent that circular being mandatory in nature and
holding the field would dis-entitle the sixth respondent for any relief and in
failing to appreciate the crucial aspect of the matter which goes to the root,
the election petition could not have been allowed. It is also contended that in
the cross-examination before the Election Tribunal, sixth respondent, Smt.
Babli had admitted that the photographs of the nomination form was not
self-attested either by her or by the proposer and the, seconder.
17. It is submitted that the allegation so leveled by the sixth respondent, Smt.
Babli that though the petitioner was permitted to get the self-attestation done
in the photograph so appended in the nomination form and the said request
was denied to the sixth respondent is preposterous besides being
misconceived for the simple reason that the records even otherwise depict
that despite opportunity accorded to the sixth respondent, she did not get the
photographs so appended in the nomination form self-attested in that regard.
To put in otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there
happens to be a communication of the Election Officer/ District Cane
Officer, Saharanpur/ Assistant District Election Officer addressed to the
District Election Officer, Saharanpur dated 09-07-2021 and also in the
written submission so submitted by the State which was marked at paper No.
33-A, a specific ground was taken that despite giving opportunity to be
respondent no. 6, Smt. Babli to rectify the defect relating to self-attestation
by herself, proposer and seconder, no steps were taken. In order to buttress
the submission, reliance has been placed upon, the judgement of the Hon'ble

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
6
Apex Court in Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others; AIR 1982
SC 983 , Smt. Guddi Devi v. The State Election Commissioner, Haryana
and others; AIR 1995 P & H 101 and Anju v. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.
Division) Pehowa and others; CWP No. 15310 of 1996 , decided on
12.03.1998. Thus it is prayed that the petition be allowed in toto and the
order be set aside.
Argument of the counsel for sixth respondent, Smt. Babli
18. Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri N.K. Pandey who appears for the sixth respondent has
submitted that none of the contentions raised by the counsel for the
petitioner has any legs to stand.
19. Submission is that the basic ground for challenge raised in the election
petition under Section 35 of the 1994 Rules is with regard to illegal rejection
of the nomination. Chapter VI of the 1994 Rules deals with the disputes
regarding the election of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh and Rule 35 prescribes
the time and the manner of presenting election petitions, Rule 36, forms etc.
of petition, Rule 37 reliefs that can be claimed by the petitioner, thus,
according to him, in absence of anything in the said rules restricting the
grounds only on which election petition can be filed and it would not be
appropriate and rather violence to the provisions so as to introduce
something which is not provided while coming up with a stand that rejection
or acceptance of nomination is not a ground of challenge in an election
petition.
20. Contention is that in view of the language employed in Rule 35, 36, and
37, all the grounds are open to the raised as in case it was the intention of the
legislature to restrict certain grounds while excluding others, then obviously
they could have been engrafted in the statute. It is also contended that the
elections of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh which are subject matter herein is an
indirect election in contrast with the elections of Gram Pradhans as per U.P.
Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 where the elections are direct elections. According
to the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, Section 12-C of the U.P.
Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 itself deals with the grounds questioning the
elections and one of them is improper acceptance or rejection of any
nomination and the said aspect stands provided under Rule 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh, Panchayati Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 and
the said provisions are pari materia to position which is existing in Section
100 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. Contention is that in the
said enactments, grounds have been given which can only be made the basis
for filing election petition, however, in the case of 1994 Rules relatable to

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
7
Pramukh and Up-Pramukh, no grounds are mentioned except the fact that
Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules only specifies that there should be ground or
grounds which should be in election petition while questioning the elections.
21. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench in
so as to contend that
Anil Kumar v. Smt. Suchita; 2009 (3) UPLBEC 2361
the similar controversy came up for consideration wherein pari materia
provisions of the 1994 Rules as available in Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat
(Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and Settlement of Election
Dispute) Rules, 1994, wherein 35 Rules of 1994 Rules were similar to Rule
33 of the 1994 Rules and it was observed that the grounds of filing of
election petitions are quite wide and they cannot be restricted while limiting
the same in view of the provisions contained under the 1961 Act.
22. It is also contended that though there happened to be non-self-attestation
of photographs in the nomination form of the sixth respondent, proposer and
seconder which was required to be done in view of the circular of the State
Election Commission dated 25.07.2021, the same cannot be a ground to
reject the nomination, particularly, when it is a curable defect and
consequences thereof its non-compliance would not be fatal. It is submitted
that in the case of the writ petitioner, there also photograph was not self-
attested but an opportunity was accorded to the writ petitioner to get the
same attested but despite request being raised by the sixth Respondent
seeking an opportunity to get its self-attested, the same was denied on the
ground that there is no need for attestation. Contention is that once
consequences of non-fulfillment of one of the requirement is not provided
then the extreme act of rejection of the nomination cannot be done. Attention
has been drawn towards, Rule11 of the 1994 Rules so as to contend that sub-
rule (2) of Rule 11 deals with certain grounds which commences from (a) to
(g), the case of the six respondent does not stand covered under the same and
in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of 1994 Rules, the returning officer is not
required to reject any nomination paper on the ground of any technical
defect or any other which is not of substantial character. Argument is that
once the proposer, seconder and the candidate himself was present before the
returning officer at the time of nomination/ scrutiny and they were asking for
self-attestation then the same cannot be a ground to reject the nomination.
Argument of the State
23. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
according to him, he has nothing to add except the fact that the order
impugned cannot be sustained. The election petition against the rejection of

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
8
the nomination is not maintainable.
Argument of State Election Commission
24. Shri Prakhar Saran Srivastava who appears for the State Election
Commission submits that the real purpose of the incorporation of clause 6(a)
of the Circular dated 05.07.2021 is that any person who desires to be
nominated as a candidate as an election to the office of the Pramukh shall
deliver in person or through its proposer and seconder, a nomination form
duly filled in Form-II to the returning officer. Thus, nomination form is to be
delivered either by a candidate or his proposer or seconder and there is no
mandate that all the three have to be present at the time of filing of the
nomination. Further Rule 8(2) provides for signing of nomination form by
the candidate as assenting to the nomination and also by one member as
proposer and another member as seconder. According to him, Rule 10
describes the procedure for filing of nomination paper which only requires
the returning officer to enter therein, the serial number and the date and the
hour at which the nomination paper has been delivered to him. There is
nothing more to be required to be done else not even point out defects in the
nomination paper and Rule 11(1) of the 1994 Rules permits the presence of
the candidate, his proposer and seconder to attend the scrutiny. It is at that
stage, three persons are permitted to be inside and witness the scrutiny and
returning officer is under obligation to give all reasonable facilities to
examine the duly nomination paper. According to him, attestation in the
photographs over the nomination paper is only to ensure free and fair
election and it is mandatory in nature. Contention is that the guidelines of the
State Election Commission issued under Section 243-K of the 1961 Act are
binding in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another; 2002
(5) SCC 294 .
Constitutional Provisions/ Statutory Enactments/ Circulars/
Communications
PART IX of the Constitution
The Panchayat
Article 243-B Constitution of Panchayats-
1. There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village,
intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this
Part.
2. Notwithstanding anything in Clause (1), Panchayats at the

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
9
intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population
not exceeding twenty lakhs.
Article 243-C Composition of Panchayats -
1. Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by
law, make provisions with respect to the composition of Panchayats:
Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a
Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayat to be
filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the
State.
2. All the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct
election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this
purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial
constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of
each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as
practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area.
3. The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the representation -
a. of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the village level, in the
Panchayats at the intermediate level or, in the case of a State not having
Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district
level;
b. of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the
Panchayats at the district level;
c. of the members of the House of the People and the Members of the
Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which
comprise wholly or partly Panchayat area at a level other than the village
level, in such Panchayat;
d. of the members of the Council of States and the members of the
Legislative Council of the State, where they are registered as electors
within -
i. a Panchayat area at the intermediate level, in Panchayat at the
intermediate level;
ii. a Panchayat area at the district level, in Panchayat at the district
level.
4. The Chairperson of a Panchayat and other members of a Panchayat
whether or not chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
10
the Panchayat area shall have the right to vote in the meetings of the
Panchayats.
5. The Chairperson of -
(a). a Panchayat at the village level shall be elected in such manner as
the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide; and
(b). a Panchayat at the intermediate level or district level shall be elected
by, and from amongst, the elected members thereof.
Article 243-E Duration of Panchayats, etc.-
1. Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time
being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its
first meeting and no longer.
2. No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the
effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is
functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its
duration specified in Clause (1).
3. An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed -
a. before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1);
b. before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its
dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved
Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be
necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the
Panchayat.
4. A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat before the
expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the
period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued under
Clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.
Article 243-F Disqualifications for membership-
1. A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a
member of a Panchayat -
a. if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force
for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned:
Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less
than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
11
years;
b. if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of
the State.
2. If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has
become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (1),
the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in
such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide.
Article 243-K Elections to the Panchayats -
1. The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats
shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State
Election Commissioner to be appointed by the
Governor.
2. Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State,
the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election
Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine:
Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from
his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a
High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election
Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his
appointment.
3. The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election
Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff
as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the
State Election Commission by Clause (1).
4. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State
may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, elections to the Panchayats.
Article 243-O Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters -
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -
a. the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or
the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be
made under Article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court;
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

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
12
provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.
The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam,
1961
6. Composition of Kshettra Panchayat – (1) A Kshettra Panchayat shall
consist of a Pramukh, who shall be its Chairperson and –
(a) all the Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats in the Khand;
(b) elected members, who shall be chosen by direct election from the
territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and for this purpose the
Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such
manner that, so far as practicable, each territorial constituency shall
have a population of two thousand:
Provided that the hill Districts of Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Tehri,
Pauri, Dehradun, Chamoli or Uttarkashi, the State Government may
declare an area within a radius of one kilometer (diameter of two
kilometer) from the center of the village specified by it in this behalf, to be
territorial constituency though such area may have a population of less
than two thousand:
Provided further that in the territorial constituency of a Kshettra
Panchayat, no territorial constituency of a constituent Gram Panchayat
shall be included in part.
(1) There shall be an
6-B. Electoral rolls for Kshettra Panchayat –
electoral roll for each territorial constituency of a Kshettra Panchayat.
(2) The electoral roll for the territorial constituency of a Kshettra
Panchayat shall consist of the electoral rolls prepared under Section 9 of
the United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for all territorial
constituencies of a Gram Panchayat or Gram Panchayats comprised
within the territorial constituency of the Kshettra Panchayat and it shall
not be necessary to prepare or revise separately the electoral roll for any
such territorial constituency of a Kshettra Panchayat;
Provided that any correction, deletion or addition made in the electoral
roll after the last date for making nominations for any election to the
Kshettra Panchayat and before the completion of that election shall not
be taken into consideration for the purposes of that election.
(1) In every Kshettra Panchayat a
7. Pramukh and Up-Pramukh–
Pramukh, a Senior Up-Pramukh and a Junior Up-Pramukh shall be
elected by the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat from amongst
themselves.

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
13
(2) The election to the office of Pramukh and Up-Pramukh may be held
notwithstanding any vacancy in the office of the elected members of
Kshettra Panchayat.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
provision of this Act, the persons who have been elected to the office of
the Up-pramukh before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007 shall continue to hold the office
as such till the expiry of their term as if the said Ordinance were not
promulgated.
12. Filling of casual vacancies - If a vacancy occurs by reason of death
or otherwise in the office of a Pramukh, Up-Pramukh or an elected
member of the Kshettra Panchayat. it [shall be filled before the expiration
of a period of six months from the date of such vacancy] in the manner
provided for in sections 6 or 7, as the case may be, for the residue of the
term of his predecessor:
Provided that if on the date of occurrence of such vacancy the residue of
the term of the Kshettra Panchayat is less than six months, the vacancy
shall not be filled.
A person
13. Disqualification for membership of Kshettra Panchayat –
shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a
Kshettra Panchayat, if he-
(a) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for
the purposes of election of the State Legislature;
Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less
than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the aged of twenty-one
years.
(b) holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central
Government or a local authority, or a Nyaya Panchayat established
under Section 42 of this United Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947;
(c) has been dismissed from the service of a State Government, the
Central Government or a local authority or a Nyaya Panchayat or a Co-
operative Society registered under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965 for misconduct;
(d) is in arrears of any tax, fee rate or any other dues payable by him to
the Gram Panchayat, Kshettra Panchayat or Zila Panchayat for such
period as may be prescribed, or has, inspite of being required to do so by
the Gram Panchayat, Nyaya Panchayat, Kshettra Panchayat or Zila
Panchayat failed to deliver to it any record or property belonging to it

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
14
which had come into his possession by virtue of his holding any office
under it.
(e) is an undischarged insolvent;
(f) has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
(g) has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three
months for contravention of any order made under the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955.
(h) has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months
or to transportation for contravention of any order made under the
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 or the U.P. Control
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947.
(i) has been sentenced for an imprisonment for a term exceeding three
months under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910.
(j) has been convicted for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
(k) has been convicted of an election offence.
(l) has been convicted of an offence under the U.P. Removal of Social
Disabilities Act, 1947 or the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
(m) is debarred from practicing as a legal practitioner by order of any
competent authority.
(n) has been declared under Section 23 to have committed any corrupt
practice within the meaning of that section and such declaration
continues to be effective; or
(o) is not registered in the electoral rolls for any territorial constituency
of the Kshettra Panchayat.
Provided that the period of disqualification under clauses (c), (e), (f), (g),
(h), (i), (j), (k) or (l) shall be five years from such date as may be
prescribed.
Provided further that the disqualification under clause (d) shall cease
upon payment of arrears or delivery of the record or property, as the case
may be.
Provided also that a disqualification under any of the clauses referred to
in the first proviso may, in the manner prescribed, be removed by the
State Government

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
15
16. Removal of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh – (1) If in the opinion of the
State Government the Pramukh or any Up-Pramukh of a Kshettra
Panchayat willfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and functions
under this Act, or abuses the powers vested in him or is found to be guilty
of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or becomes physically or
mentally incapacitated for performing his duties, the State Government
may, after giving the Pramukh or such Up-Pramukh as the case may be, a
reasonable opportunity for explanation and after consulting the
Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat concerned in the matter and taking into
consideration his opinion, if received within thirty days from the date of
the dispatch of the communication for such consultation, by order,
remove such Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, as the case may be, from office,
and such order shall be final and not open to be questioned in a Court of
law.
Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person and in such
manner as may be prescribed, a Pramukh or 4[x x x] is prima facie found
to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Pramukh or
Up-Pramukh shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and
administrative powers and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated
of the charges in the final enquiry, be exercised and performed by a
committee consisting of three elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat
appointed in this behalf by the State Government.
(2) A Pramukh or Up-Pramukh removed from his officer under this
section, shall not be eligible for re-election as Pramukh or Up-Pramukh
for a period of three years from the date of his removal.
18. Composition of Zila Panchayat – (1) A Zila Panchayat shall consist
of an Adhyaksha who shall be its Chairperson, and –
(a) Pramukh of all Kshettra Panchayats in the District;
(b) Elected members, who shall be chosen by direct election from the
territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and for this purpose the
Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such
manner that, so far as practicable, each such territorial constituency
shall have a population of fifty thousand:
Provided that in the hill districts of Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Tehri,
Pauri, Dehradun, Chamoli or Uttarkashi, the State Government may
declare an area within a radius of seven kilometers (diameter of fourteen
kilometers) from the center of the village specified by it in this behalf, or
an area equivalent thereto as may be prescribed, to be a territorial
constituency though such constituency may have a population of less than

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
16
fifty thousand.
Provided further that in the territorial constituency of a Zila Panchayat,
no territorial constituency of a Kshettra Panchayat comprised within it,
shall be included in part.
27. Disputes as to membership or disqualifications – (1) If any dispute
arises as to whether a particular person is a member of the Zila
Panchayat under [clause (a)] of Section 18, the dispute shall be referred
in the manner prescribed to the State Government and the decision of the
State Government shall be final and binding.
(2) If a dispute arises as to whether a person –
(a) has been lawfully chosen [x x x] a member of a Zila Psnchayat under
Section 18; or
(b) has ceased to remain eligible for being chosen [x x x] a member [x x
x] of the Zila Panchayat for the purposes of Section 20; or
(c) has become disqualified to be Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha for the
purposes of Section 19.
the dispute shall be referred in the manner prescribed to the Judge whose
decision shall be final and binding.

The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and
Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994
8. Nominations.
(1) Any person who desires to be nominated as a candidate at an election
to the office of Pramukh of a Panchayat shall deliver in person or through
his proposer and seconder a nomination paper duly filled in Form II to
the Returning Officer within the hours of 11 O'clock in the forenoon and 3
O'clock in the afternoon on the date and at place specified in the notice
under Rule 6.
(2) The nomination paper shall be signed by the candidate himself as
assenting to the nomination and also by one member as proposer and
another member as seconder.
(3) Where a candidate seeks election to a seat reserved for the Scheduled
Tribes or the Scheduled Castes or the backward classes, there shall
accompany with the nomination paper a declaration subscribed by him
stating that he is a member of the Scheduled Tribes or the Scheduled
Castes or the backward classes, as the case may be, specifying the
particular tribe or caste to which he belongs.

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
17
(4) A nomination paper filed after the last hour mentioned in sub-rule (1)
shall forthwith be rejected by the Returning Officer.
10. Procedure of filling of nomination papers. - The Returning Officer
shall on receiving a nomination paper under Rule 8 enter thereon its
serial number and the date on which and the hour at which the
nomination paper has been delivered to him, and shall as soon as may be
thereafter, cause to be affixed at some conspicuous place in his office a
notice of the nominations in Form III containing descriptions similar to
those contained in the nomination paper, both of the candidates and of
the persons who have signed the nomination papers as proposer and
seconder.
11. Scrutiny of nominations.-
(1) At the scrutiny of nominations, the candidates, their proposers and
seconders but no other person, may attend. The Returning Officer shall
give them all reasonable facilities for examining the duly received
nomination papers.
(2)The Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and decide
all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may either on
such objection or on his own motion after such summary inquiry, if any,
as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following
grounds-
(a)that the candidate is not qualified to be chosen to the office under the
Act;
(b)that the candidate is disqualified for being chosen to the office under
the Act;
(c)that there has been any failure to comply with any of the provisions of
Rules 8 and 9;
(d)that the signature of the candidate or the proposer or seconder is not
genuine or has been obtained by fraud;
(e)that candidate is not a member;
(f)that the proposer or the seconder is not a member;
(g)that the candidate does not belong to the tribe or caste or class or sex
for whom the office is so reserved.
(3)Nothing contained in clause (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of sub-rule (2) shall
be deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination of any candidate
on the ground of any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper if the

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
18
candidate has been duly nominated by means of another nomination
paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed.
(4)The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the
ground of any technical defect or other error which is not of a substantial
character and may for the purpose of removing any such defect or error
allow any entry to be corrected in the nomination paper including any
entry relating to name or number on the election roll.
(5)The order of the Returning Officer allowing any correction to be made
under sub-rule (4) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court
of law.
(6)The Returning Officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date and time
appointed in this behalf under Rule 6 and shall not allow any
adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are
interrupted or obstructed by cause beyond his control.
(7)The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his
decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is
rejected shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such
rejection.
(8)For the purpose of this rule the existence of the name of a person in the
list of members prepared under Rule 7 shall be conclusive evidence that
he is eligible for election to the post of Adhyaksha.
(9) Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinised and
decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the
Returning Officer shall prepare in Form III-A, a list of validly nominated
candidates, that is to say, candidates whose nominations have been found
valid and affix it to his notice board.
35. Time and manner of presenting petitions.-
(1)An election petition calling in question the election of a Pramukh or
Up-Pramukh, may be presented to the Judge at any time within thirty
days from the date of declaration of the result under Rule 14 or Rule 29,
as the case may be.
(2)It shall be presented in person by the petitions or if there are more
than one petitioner, by any one or more of them.
36. Form, etc. of petition.-
(1)An election petition shall specify the ground or grounds on which the
election of the returned candidate is questioned and shall contain a

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
19
summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being
questioned on such ground.
(2)The person whose election is questioned and where the petitioner
claims that any other candidate shall be declared elected in the place of
such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to
the petition.
37. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.- A petitioner may claim
either of the following declarations-
(a)that the election of the returned candidate is void:
(b)that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself
or any other candidate has been duly elected.
The Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-
Adhyaksha and Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994
(1) An election petition
33. Time and manner of presenting petitions.-
calling in question the election of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh, may be
presented to the Judge at any time within thirty days from the date of
declaration of the result under Rule 14 or Rule 29, as the case may be.
(2) It shall be presented in person by the petitions or if there are more
than one petitioner, by any one or more of them.
34. Form, etc. of petition.-
(1) An election petition shall specify the ground or grounds on which the
election of the returned candidate is questioned and shall contain a
summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being
questioned on such ground.
(2) The person whose election is questioned and where the petitioner
claims that any other candidate shall be declared elected in the place of
such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a respondent to
the petition.
35. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.-
- A petitioner may claim either of the following declarations- (a) that the
election of the returned candidate is void:
(b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself
or any other candidate has been duly elected.

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
20
Analysis
25. I have heard the submissions made across the bar and perused the record
carefully.
26. To begin with there are certain undisputed facts. Namely, a notification
to be issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh for filling up the office for Block
Pramukh throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh inclusive of Block Pramukh
of Block Gangoh, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur which was under OBC
(Woman) Category. The date scheduled for nomination was 08-07-2021, the
same could be withdrawn by a candidate by 09-07-2021 and the election was
scheduled on 10-07-2021. The petitioner/ returned candidate along with the
election petitioner, sixth respondent/ Smt. Babli and one Smt. Suman had
submitted their nomination form. The nomination form of the sixth
respondent, Smt. Babli and of Smt. Suman, seventh respondent, came to be
rejected. The ground for rejection of the nomination form of Smt. Babli,
sixth respondent was that the photograph so attended in the nomination form
was neither attested by the election petitioner/ sixth respondent nor by the
proposer or the seconder. As a matter of fact, the petitioner/ returned
candidate also filed an objection (Paper No. 25-C/13) against the nomination
of the election petitioner/ sixth respondent, Smt. Babli taking a ground that
her name stands recorded in Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly-25 at
Haridwar and Loksabha- 5, Haridwar at serial No.142, Aryanagar,
Jawalapur, U-Bhavan, K.N.-1 and serial No.781, Shivalik Shishu Junior
High School, Aryanagar, Uttari Bhavan, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Thus,
the name of the election petitioner/ sixth respondent is to be deleted from
one place to contest election at the other place. Aggrieved of the rejection of
the nomination by the official respondents, the election petitioner/ sixth
respondent instituted instituted an election petition No. 217/2021 before the
court of District Judge/ Election Tribunal, Saharapur, Smt. Babli v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, under Section 35 of the 1994 Rules seeking
following relief:
"( ) -98 4
अ क्षेत्र पंचायत गंगोह प्रादेशिय निर्वाचन क्षेत्र संख्या पर विपक्षी संख्या
20215
को प्रमुख के पद पर दिनांक को निविरोधा निर्वाचित किये जाने सम्बन्धी
1 3 0-4
विपक्षीगण संख्या ता के आदेश को निरस्त कर विपक्षी सं का चुनाव शून्य
घोषित किया जाये।
( )
ब अन्य कोई सहायता जो मा० न्यायालय की राय में याची के पक्ष में पारित की
,
जानी उचित प्रतीत हो याची के पक्ष में एवं विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध पारित की जाये।
( ) "
स इस चुनाव याचिका का व्यय याची को विपक्षीगण से दिलाया जाये।
27. The election petition on contest came to be allowed on 20.09.2023

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
21
setting aside/ cancelling the election dated 10.07.2021, declaring the election
of the writ petitioner as illegal and void. The first and foremost question
which arises for consideration is whether the election petition so preferred
by the election petitioner against the rejection of nomination is maintainable
or not. In order to address the said issue, what would be relevant, would be
the legal position in the statutory framework. Chapter-IX of the Constitution
of India deals with the Panchayats. Article 243-A talks about Gram Sabha
who is to exercise such powers and performs such functions at the village
level as the legislature of the State may by law provide, followed by Article
243-B that there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village,
intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions, Article
243-C deals with Composition of Panchayats whereas Article 243-E deals
with duration of Panchayats, Article 243-F, disqualification of membership,
Article 243K, election in the Panchayat. Thereafter comes Article 243-O
which provides for a bar to interference by courts in election matters. Article
243-O (b) stipulates that no election to the 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 the State. To put in otherwise, the election petition, questioning an
election of any Panchayat can only be called in question in accordance with
law before the designated authority as specified by the Legislature. In the
present case, the election of Block Pramukh is the subject matter of
controversy, thus, in exercise of the powers under Section 237 read with
Section 264-B of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961 (in short, 'The 1961 Act'), the rules by the name and the
nomenclature of the The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of
Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
1994 came to be enacted. Chapter IV of the 1994 Rules deals with the
dispute regarding elections of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs. Notably Rule 35
prescribes the time and the manner of election petition, according to which,
an election petition calling in question the election of Pramukh or Up-
Pramukh is to be presented to the Judge at any time within 30 days from the
date of the declaration of the result under Rule 14 and 29 as the case may be.
Rule 36 provides that an election petition shall specify the ground and
grounds on which the election of a returned candidate is questioned and shall
contain a summary of circumstances alleged to justify election being
questioned on the said ground. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules
further provides that the person whose election is questioned and where the
election petitioner claims that any other candidate shall be declared elected
in the place of such person, every unsuccessful candidate shall be made a
respondent to the petition. Rule 37 of the 1994 Rules provides for the nature
of the relief which can be claimed in the election petition seeking

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
22
declaration; (a) that the election of the returned candidate is void; (b) that the
election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other
candidate has been duly elected. Interestingly, Rule 35, 36 and 37 of the
1994 Rules do not specify the grounds on which election petition is to be
filed question the elections.
28. Apparently, there happens to be an act by the name of Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 wherein Section 6
deals with Composition of Kshettra Panchayat wherein the Kshettra
Panchayat shall consist of a Pramukh, who shall be its Chairperson and all
the Pradhans of the Gram Panchayats in the Khand and elected members,
who shall be chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in
the Panchayat area for the said purpose. Section 6-B deals with the election
rolls for Kshettra Panchayat and Section 6-C provides for right to vote. Now
comes Section 7 of the 1961 Act which mandates that in every Kshettra
Panchayat, a Pramukh (a senior Up-pramukh and a junior Up-pramukh) shall
be elected by elected members of Kshettra Panchayat for amongst others.
Section 8 talks about the term of the Kshettra Panchayat and its members.
Section 9, terms of Pramukh and Up-pramukh, Section 11 deals with the
resignation of Pramukh, Up-pramukh or member and Section 12 further
deals with filling of casual vacancies.
29. Section 13 of the 1961 Act talks about the disqualifications of
membership of Kshettra Panchayat and Section 14 deals with disputes to the
membership or disqualifications and Section 16, removal of Pramukh or Up-
pramukh. Section 27 deals with the dispute as to membership or
disqualifications.
30. The bone of contention between the parties is whether against the
rejection of the nomination, the election petition is maintainable or not.
Pertinently, Rules 35, 36 and 37 of the 1994 Rules nowhere provide any
specific grounds on which election petition is to be presented. However, the
word which has been employed is "ground or grounds" itself is quite wide
and had the legislature intended to restrict the grounds so mentioned in the
1961 Act then nothing prevented from not specifying or referring to in Rule
35 of the 1994 Rules. It is also not the case of the parties that the 1994 Rules
is ultra vires of the 1961 Act as the 1994 Rules came to be enacted in
exercise of the powers under Section 237 read with Section 264-B of the
1961 Act. Certainly, the position might have been different, in case, there
was any indication in the Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules that there are specific
grounds on which the election petition could be filed but once the Rules are
completely silent upon the said aspects and the word 'ground and grounds'
have been mentioned then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
23
only the grounds for disqualification so provided in the 1961 Act, would
only be the ground for filing of the election petition. As regards, the Uttar
Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and
Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 are concerned and they have
also been enacted in exercise of the powers under Rule 237 the 1961 Act and
Rule 33 of the said Rule is pari materia to the Rule 35 of 1994 Rules
whereas Rule 34 is pari materia to Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules and Rule 35 is
also the pari materia to Rule 37 of 1994 Rules.
31. In wherein an issue was framed regarding the
Anil Kumar (supra)
maintainability of the election petition on the ground that Rule 33 of the the
Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha
and Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 did not provide for filing of
an election petition with regard to the qualification/ disqualification wherein
the following was observed:
" 22. There is no dispute between the parties that the only ground on
which the election petition was filed was that the respondent Smt. Suchita
Patel was not 21 years of age on the relevant date and as such was
disqualified for being nominated and elected as Adhyaksha of Zila
Panchayat.
23. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, in the view of the provisions of Section 27(2)(c)
of the Act contends that as the issue raised in the election petition is with
regard to qualification/disqualification of the respondent Smt. Suchita
Patel to hold the office of Adhyaksha, the dispute is referable to the Judge
and the election petition for the purpose as provided under Rule 33 of the
Rules is not maintainable.
Section 27 sub clause (2)(c) of the Act which is relevant provides that if a
dispute arises as to whether a person has become disqualified to be
Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the dispute shall be referred to the Judge as
may be prescribed. The manner and procedure of raising dispute under
Section 27(2)(c) of the Act has been laid down in rules 48 to 52 of the
Rules. For the sake of convenience the relevant part of the Section 27 of
the Act is quoted herein below.
"(1) ...................................................................
(2) If a dispute arises as to whether a person-
(a) has been lawfully chosen [x x x] a member of a Zila Panchayat under
Section 18; or
(b) has ceased to remain eligible for being chosen [x x x] a member [x x
x] of the Zila Panchayat for the purposes of Section 20; or

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
24
(c) has become disqualified to be Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha for the
purposes of Section 19,
the dispute shall be referred in the manner prescribed to the Judge whose
decision shall be final and binding."
24. The power given under Section 27 of the Act is very limited in nature
and is confined only to cases where an Adhyaksha or Upadhaksha after
being elected becomes disqualified. Thus, it is only in the limited cases
where the person subsequent to election for one reason or the other earns
disqualification that the matter is referable to the Judge concerned and
not otherwise. In other words, where a person who was disqualified from
the very beginning to contest for the post of Adhyaksha and to hold the
same, the provisions of Section 27(2)(c) of the Act would not come into
play. In that event, an election petition under Rule 33 alone would be
maintainable as it would amount to incorrect acceptance of nomination of
a person who is not qualified.
25. On the contrary Article 243-O of the Constitution provides that no
election to any Panchayat (which obviously include the post/office of
Adhyaksha) shall be called in question except by an election petition. In
consonance thereof Rule 33 of the Rules provide for disputing the election
of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha by presenting an election petition to the
Judge concerned for which no specific grounds have been enumerated.
26. A bare reading of Rule 33 of the Rules demonstrates that it is much
wider in amplitude in comparison to Section 27 of the Act. Rule 33
provides that an election of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Zila
Panchayat can be questioned by filing an election petition before the
Judge concerned and such a petition can be on any ground whatsoever as
the grounds have not been enumerated therein i.e. adopting corrupt
practice, incorrect acceptance or rejection of the nomination paper or
even on the ground of disqualification of the person concerned, etc. It
would not be proper to give a restrictive meaning to Rule 33 of the Rules
so as to exclude the ground of disqualification from its ambit in view of
the language used in Article 243-O of the Constitution.
27. Section 18-C of the Act clearly lays down that a person who has not
completed the age of 21 years shall not be qualified to be elected as a
member or office bearer of the Zila Panchayat. The effect of the aforesaid
provision is that the election of a person who does not fulfil the above
requirement would be void. In the case of Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh
Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673 the Supreme Court observed such a question
undisputedly would fall for consideration in an election petition as
despite disqualification the acceptance of nomination paper of such a

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
25
person amounts to incorrect acceptance.
28. There is another angle for arriving at the above conclusion. Both
under Section 27(2)(c) of the Act and Rule 33 of the Rules, the matter is to
be adjudicated by the Judge concerned which under Section 2(24) of the
Act means the District Judge and any other sub-ordinate Civil Judge or
judicial officer named or designated by the District Judge in this behalf.
As such the dispute in both the cases is to be decided by the same
person/authority for which the procedure is also the same. Therefore, it
makes no difference if such a dispute comes before the Judge concerned
either by reference under Section 27(2)(c) of the Act or though on
election petition under Rule 33 of the Rules.
29. In view of the above limited sphere of operation of Section 27(2)(c) of
the Act, I am of the firm opinion that the Court below manifestly erred in
deciding issue No.3 and holding that the election petition was barred.
Therefore, the finding on the said issue deserves to be set aside and is
hereby set aside and it is held that the election petition under Rule 33 of
the Rules is maintainable even on the ground of disqualification which is
said to have existed at the time of nomination."
32. As regards, the reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others; AIR 1982 SC
983 s o as to contend that Election Tribunal is not a court of preliminary
jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction is controlled and limited by statute
creating it and it can only entertain an election petitioner on the ground as
specified in the statute is concerned, there is no quarrel to the said
proposition of law. However, there is a distinguishable feature appearing in
the present case at hand that Rule 36 does not specify or limit any ground
which can be taken for the purposes of filing of an election petition.
However, the words employed in Rule 36 of 1994 Rules itself provides for
"ground or grounds" meaning thereby that all the grounds are available to be
taken in order to question the elections. So far as the judgment in Charan
Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh and another; 1984 (1) SCC 390 is concerned,
the same also reiterates the law laid down in ,
Jyoti Basu and others (supra)
however, the same may not be of any aid or assistance to the petitioner,
particularly when there is nothing in the 1994 Rules restricting or limiting
certain grounds. Now comes the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in
Smt. Guddi Devi v. The State Election Commissioner, Haryana
in which the provisions of Section 176(4)
and others; AIR 1995 P & H 101
of the Haryana Pancyati Raj Act,1994 came to be considered. The same for
ready reference is quoted hereinunder:
"(4) (a) If on the holding such inquiry the civil court finds that a

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
26
candidate has, for the purpose of election committed a corrupt practice
within the meaning of sub-section (5) he shall set aside the election and
declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose of election and fresh
election may be held.
[(aa) If on holding such enquiry the Civil Court finds that-
(i) on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified to be
elected;
(ii) any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(iii) the result of the election, in so far it concerns a returned candidate,
has been materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination
or by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned
candidate by an agent other than his election agent or by the improper
reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote
which is void or by any non-compliance with or violation of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or of this Act, or any rules or
orders made under this Act, election of such returned candidate shall be
set aside and fresh election may be held.;]
(b) If, in any case to which 2[clause (a) or clause (aa)] does not apply,
the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates,
the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in
favour of each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the
largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been duty elected :
Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes is found to
exist between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any
of the candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be
added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in
the favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, elected by
lot drawn in the presence of the judge in such manner as he may
determine.
(Section 176(4)(aa)(i)(ii)(iii) came to be inserted by H.N. No. 17 of
2001.)"
33. Perusal of Section 176(4) of the 1994 Act prior to its amendment,
provided the specific grounds for challenge to be raised in the election
petition, wherein the grounds were confined to corrupt practices within the
meaning of subsection (5) of Section 176 of the Act amongst others.
However, there was no ground available relatable to filing of an election
petition against any nomination being improperly rejected. Post amendment
which was inserted by H.A. No. 17 of 2001 grounds (i) (ii) (iii) of Clause

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
27
(aa) came to be inserted in subsection (4) of Section 176 of the Act whereby
against the rejection of nomination, the election petition was made
maintainable.
34. Though in Guddi Devi (supra), the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court came to the conclusion that merely because neither
under the Act nor under the Rules framed any remedy had been provided
against illegal rejection or illegal acceptance of the nomination paper by way
of election petition, however, it would not be a bar for the party for taking
the said ground in election petition while challenging the validity of the
election at a subsequent stage to the declaration of the result. The correctness
of the decision in Guddi Devi (supra) was doubted and in Anju v. Addl.
Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Pehowa and others; CWP No. 15310 of 1996 ,
decided on 12.03.1998, while relying upon the judgment in Jyoti Basu and
and others judgments, it was laid down that in
other (supra) Guddi Devi
(supra) is not a good law while observing as under:
"10. We find support in our view from the authority of the apex Court in
N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency,
Namakkal, Salem Distt., AIR 1952 SC 64 wherein it was observed that
rejection or acceptance of nomination papers is included in the term
'election'. We find further support in our view from the authority of the
apex Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233
wherein on the basis of the authority in N. P. Ponnuswami's case (supra),
it was held that the word 'election' in Article 329(b) was used in a
comprehensive sense as including the entire process of election
commencing with the issue of a notification and terminating with the
declaration of election of a candidate and that an application under
Article 226 challenging the validity of any of the acts forming part of that
process would be barred. These are instances of original proceedings
calling in question an election, and would be within the prohibition
enacted in Article 329(b)."
11. It is true that under sub-section (4) of Section 176 of the Act it is
provided that the election shall be set aside for committing corrupt
practice within the meaning of subsection (5), However, we are of the
firm view that the provision of sub-section (4)(a) for setting aside the
election of a candidate on the basis of corrupt practice within the
meaning of sub-section (5) cannot in any manner be interpreted to mean
that only ground for setting aside the election would be on the basis of
corrupt practice and not on the basis of illegal rejection or acceptance or
nomination papers of a candidate or illegalities or irregularities
committed in preparation of electoral rolls and all such matters
connected with the conduct of the election process right from its very

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
28
beginning up to its final culmination with the declaration of the election
results. Mere fact that neither under the Act nor under the Rules framed
by the Stale Legislature any remedy has been provided against illegal
rejection or illegal acceptance of nomination papers or illegalities or
irregularities committed in preparation of the electoral rolls before the
culmination of the election process in our view would not in any manner
debar the affected party from taking up all such objections in the election
petition while challenging the validity of election at a stage subsequent to
the declaration of the election results. Rather such an interpretation
which we have taken is in consonance with the prime object of completing
the entire election process expeditiously, and without any undue delay
and would certainly be helpful in holding the election process according
to the schedule. The mistakes, irregularities or illegalities committed in
the election process can certainly be rectified at a later stage when the
affected party approaches the competent authority by way of election
petition."
35. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the
judgment in Anju (supra) but the said judgment is distinguishable,
particularly, when Rule 36 of the 1994 Rules does not provide any specific
ground on which an election petition can be filed. Thus, by virtue of a
judicial fiat, this Court cannot curtail any ground, once it was never the
intention of the rule making authority.
36. Thus, it can be safely said that an election petition is maintainable
against the improper rejection of the nomination paper and to the said extent,
the order under challenge of the Election Tribunal cannot be faulted.
37. The next question which needs to be addressed is whether the election
petitioner, proposer and seconder were denied opportunity attest to the
photographs appended on the nomination form while according opportunity
to do so to the returned candidate and also the consequences of non-
attestation in the light of the circular of the State Election Commission dated
05.07.2021. Both the questions are interwoven are each other, thus, they are
being taken together.
38. Apparently, the allegation of the election petitioner is that along with the
proposer and the seconder was present at the time of filing of the nomination
and scrutiny. It is also alleged that the petitioner/ returned candidate had also
not got the photograph appended on the nomination form attested but
opportunity was accorded to the returned candidate/ writ petitioner to rectify
the said defect and the writ petitioner/ returned candidate, its proposer and
seconder got the self-attestation done but the same was denied to the election
petitioner and in the order impugned, it is recorded that the election

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
29
petitioner, proposer and seconder were present and when the election
petitioner asked requested accorded opportunity to self-attest the photograph
on the nomination form, the same was refused.
39. In para-6 of the writ petition, the following has been averred:
"6. That after scrutiny of Nomination Papers under Rule 11 of the Rules,
1994, the nomination of the respondent no. 6 (Smt. Babli W/O- Mem
Singh) and Kavita W/O- Vikas Kumar of Village Dabkaula was rejected
due to non-compliance of the endition no. 6(A) of the Directive issued
State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow vide Letter No.
4169/Ra.Ni.Aa.-3/P.Ni./53-21/2021 dated 25.07.2021. Due to rejection of
their nomination, respondent no. 6 and Kavita raised objection that their
nomination paper can not be rejected. Assistant Returning Officer/
District Cane Officer, Saharanpur wrote a letter vide dated 09.07.2021 to
District Election Officer, Saharanpur apprising all the relevant facts and
legal position and found that complaint raised by respondent no. 6 and
Kavita has no force as their nomination was rejected due to incomplete
nomination paper which was not corrected by them. The copy of the letter
dated 09.07.2021 written by Assistant Election Officer, Saharanpur to
District Election Officer, Saharanpur and State Election commission,
U.P., Lucknow letter dated 05.07.2021 are being annexed as Annexure
No. 3 and Annexure No. 4 respectively to this writ petition."
40. In support of the same, Annexure-3 page 51 happens to be a
communication of the District Cane Officer, Saharanpur/ Assistant Election
Officer, Gangoh addressed to the District Election Officer, Saharanpur,
according to which, despite opportunity being accorded to the Election
petitioner/ sixth respondent to do the needful for getting the self-attestation
done in the photograph appended to the application form, the election
petitioner/ sixth respondent did not make any attempt to get the self-
attestation done. Para-6 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied
in pleadings by way of a counter affidavit by the sixth respondent. The
communication dated 09-07-2021 has been given a Paper No. being 25-
C/12. Basically, the objection of the election petitioner/ respondent no. 6 is
that the said communication is of Assistant Election Officer, Gangoh, though
addressed to District Election Officer and not a communication of Election
Officer or of a Returning Officer, thus, it has got no legal sanctity and it
cannot be relied upon.
41. The relevant extract of communication of the District Cane Officer/
Assistant Election Officer, Gangoh addressed to District Election Officer,
Saharanpur dated 09.07.2021 is quoted hereinunder:

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
30
"
उक्त के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि श्रीमति बबली पत्नी मेमसिंह ग्राम पूजना के द्वारा
प्रमुख क्षेत्र पंचायत के लिए दो सेट में नामांकन पत्र दाखिल किया गया दोनो ही नामांकन पत्र
, . . 4169/ . . .-
के सेट पर शिकायतकर्ता के द्वारा राज्य निर्वाचन आयोग उ प्र के पत्र संख्या रा नि अ
3/ . ./53-21/2021 05.0.7.2021 6 ( )
प नि दिनांक के प्रस्तर क में दिये गये निर्देशानुसार
सम्मीदवार तथा उसके प्रस्तावक व अनुमोदक द्वारा नामांकन पत्र पर चस्पा किये गये फोटोग्राफ
3.00
स्वप्रमाणित नही किये गये थे जबकि शिकायतकर्ता को बजे तक पर्याप्त अवसर भी दिया
गया परन्तु इनके समक्ष स्कूटनी के पश्चात जब नामांकन पत्र को अवैध घोषित कर दिया गया
तत्पश्चात उनके द्वारा बखेडा खडा किया गया। इसके अतिरिक्त नामांकन पत्र इनके द्वारा
98
निर्वाचक नामावली में बबली पत्नी मेमसिंह क्रमाक पर दर्ज होने के बाद भी नामांकन पत्र
पर श्रीमति बबली पत्नी मेमसिंह लिखा गया। श्रीमति बबली के विरूद्ध यह भी आपत्ति आई कि
रूडकी विधान सभा एवं हरिद्वार लोकसभा उत्तराखण्ड राज्य से यह मतदाता है जिसका कोई
उल्लेख शिकायतकर्ता के द्वारा अपने शपथपत्र में नहीं किया गया था आपत्ति इस पत्र के साथ
"
संलग्न है।
42. Apart from the same, the Court finds that there happens to be a written
argument submitted by the State, Annexure-7, page-99. Reference whereof
has been given in para-9 of the petition, which reads as under:
"9.That in this election petition, Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 have
also filed written arguments (33A) before the respondent no. 2
vide dated 15.02.2022. The copy of the written arguments filed on
behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 vide dated 15.02.2022 is
being annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition."
43. The relevant extract of the written submissions of defendant nos. 1 and 3
in the elections and respondent nos. 1 and 3/ State of Uttar Pradesh through
connector and Election Officer/ DCO Bhawan Cane, Saharanpur dated
15.02.2022 is quoted hereinunder:
"
नाम निर्देशन पत्र जमा हो जाने के बाद जाँच करने के पश्चात किसी भी उम्मीदवार को त्रुटि
3.00
ठीक करने के लिए नही कहा जा सकता परन्तु इसके बावजूद भी याची को बजे तक
पर्याप्त अवसर भी दिया गया था परन्तु इनके द्वारा इसके बावजूद भी उनके द्वारा ना तो कोई
प्रार्थना पत्र दुरूस्ती के लिए दिया गया और ना ही उपरोक्त त्रुटि को ठीक किया गया। जिस पर
विधिनुसार याची व अन्य का नाम निर्देशन पत्र त्रुटिपूर्ण होने के कारण का उल्लेख करते हुए
निरस्त किया गया जिसके विरूद्व याची को कुछ भी कहने का अधिकार नही है। याची ने जो भी
1 3
आरोप विपक्षीगण नं० ता के विरूद्ध लगाये है वह आधारहीन एवं साक्ष्यहीन है तथा याची
1 3
के इस कदर झूठे आरोप लगाने से विपक्षीगण नं० ता के पद की गरिमा को ठेस पँहुची है
"
जिसके विषय में याची के विरूद्व कार्यवाही करने का अधिकार सुरक्षित रखा गया।
44. In the said written argument, the State had come up with a stand that
despite opportunity being accorded to the election petitioner/ respondent no.
6/ Smt. Babli to get the self-attestation done and to rectify the error but
nothing was done at the end of the election petitioner/ sixth respondent. The

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
31
written submission was given a Number 33-A. However, Election Tribunal
has referred to the said documents but has not considered the same.
45. Certainly, Rule 8 of the 1994 Rules provides for nomination wherein
who desires to be nominated as the candidate as to deliver in person or
through proposer and seconder, nomination paper duly filled in Form-II to
the Returning Officer within the hours of 11 o'clock in the forenoon and 3'O
clock in the afternoon on that date and the place specified in under Rule 6,
and the nomination paper is to be signed by the candidate and attested
himself as assenting to the nomination and also by one member as proposer
and other member as seconder. Rule 6 speaks about scrutiny of nomination,
according to which, at the scrutiny of the nomination, the candidates, their
proposer and seconders are to be present. The returning officer is to examine
the papers and decide all objections and after summary inquiry, he has the
power to reject on several grounds as apparent from sub-clause (a) to (g) of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the 1994 Rules goes to
show that the returning offier shall not reject any nomination paper on the
ground of any technical defect or other error which is not of substantial
character and may for the purposes of removing any such defect or error,
allow entry to be correct in the nomination paper including entry relating to
name and number on the Election Roll.
46. Pertinently, sub-clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the 1994 Rules
provides that one of the ground amongst others for rejection of the
nomination is that the signature of the candidate or the proposer or seconder
is not genuine or has been obtained by fraud.
47. Here, it is none of the case of the parties that the signature of the
candidate, proposer or seconder was not genuine and had been obtained by
fraud. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the 1994 Rules enjoins the returning officer
not to reject nomination paper on the ground of any technical defect or of
error which is not substantial character. Then comes the circular of the State
Election Commission dated 05-07-2021, Clause 6-(a) itself shows that there
has to be a signature of the candidate, proposer and seconder over the
photographs so appended to the nomination form. No provisions either in the
Act, Rule or in the circular as referred to above has been placed before this
Court for rejection of the nomination on the ground that on absence of self-
attestation of the photograph on the nomination paper of the candidate,
proposer and seconder, thus, it can be very well said that the extreme act of
cancellation of nomination could not have been done.
48. However, the entire thing boils upon the fact that whether opportunity
was accorded to the election petitioner/ sixth respondent, Smt. Babli to get

WRIC No. 34527 of 2023
32
the self-attestation done on the photograph appended to the nomination
paper or not in the wake of the fact that discrimination has been alleged by
her. As already noticed two crucial documents, one being the
communication dated 09.07.2021 of the Assistant Election Commissioner,
Gangoh/ District Cane Officer addressed to District Election Officer and the
second, the written arguments submitted by the State before the Election
Tribunal reciting therein that despite opportunity being accorded to the
election petitioner/ sixth respondent/ Smt. Babli to get the attestation done of
the photograph appended on the nomination form, the same was not done.
49. Since the aforesaid documents which goes to the root of the matter has
not been considered though it was available before the Election Tribunal in
view of the Registration of the paper number to the said documents, thus, in
the opinion of the Court, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Election
Tribunal to pass a fresh order after considering both the said documents.
50. Accordingly, the writ petition is being partly allowed .
51. The order dated 20.09.2023 is passed by the District Judge/ Election
Tribunal, Saharanpur in Election Petition No. 217 of 2021 is set aside.
52. Matter stand remitted back to the Election Tribunal to pass a fresh orders
within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified
copy of the order.
May 26, 2026
Ashu
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad