RAJENDRA SINGH vs VIPIN KUMAR
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010133592026
2026:UHC:7835-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2026
ST
01 SEPTEMBER, 2026
Rajendra Singh …… Appellant
Versus
Vipin Kumar and others …… Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhant
Tiwari, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel
for respondent No. 1 through video
conferencing
: Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing
Counsel with Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned
Brief Holder for the State
: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 3 and 5
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Delay Condonation Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026)
1) The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 59
days. Counsel for the respondents have no objection to
condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned.
Delay Condonation application is allowed. Office is directed
to allot a regular number to the instant appeal.
1
UKHC010133592026
2026:UHC:7835-DB
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 2026
2) Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for
the appellant; Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel (through
VC) for respondent No. 1; Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing
Counsel for the State; and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
3) The present intra-court appeal is directed against
the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.04.2026 by
which Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1187 of 2026, filed by private
respondent No. 1, has been allowed and a direction has
been issued to the District Election Officer / District
Magistrate to decide the complaint of the writ-petitioner,
made against the appellant, regarding his disqualification
from holding the post of Member, Zila Panchayat and
President, Zila Panchayat, within three months from the
date of production of certified copy of the order.
4) The case of the writ-petitioner was that the
appellant was disqualified from contesting the election on
the post of Member, Zila Panchayat and from being elected
as President, Zila Panchayat on account of the fact that he
was registered as a voter in the concerned Zila Panchayat as
well as in the Municipal Corporation, Roorkee. The writ-
petitioner had alleged that although he had filed complaint
2
UKHC010133592026
2026:UHC:7835-DB
in this regard in the month of December 2023, but no
enquiry was held as contemplated under Section 90(4) of
the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016. Accordingly,
learned Single Judge had issued the aforesaid direction.
5) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the aforesaid allegation made by
the writ-petitioner, even if admitted, would not result in any
disqualification under Section 90 of the Act, nor under any
other provision of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
It is also his submission that since the allegation relates to
alleged disqualification of the writ-petitioner in contesting
the election, the dispute can only be raised by way of an
election petition. It is further submitted that, in any event,
the learned Single Judge ought not to have disposed of the
writ petition without issuing notice to the appellant.
6) Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the writ-petitioner (the contesting respondent
herein) very fairly states that he has no objection in case
the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted
to the appellant to file counter-affidavit and, thereafter the
writ petition is decided.
7) Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for
the State Election Commission has referred to the provisions
3
UKHC010133592026
2026:UHC:7835-DB
of Section 138 and Section 8 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat
Raj Act 2016, in trying to support the case of the writ-
petitioner. However, he is also not able to explain how the
District Election Officer would have any jurisdiction to decide
such a complaint after the election has been held. He also
has no objection in case the matter is relegated to the
Single Judge for deciding the controversy afresh after
granting opportunity to the appellant to file counter-
affidavit.
8) Accordingly, as agreed between the parties, the
order of learned Single Judge dated 30.04.2026 is hereby
set aside. The appellant is granted ten days time to file
counter-affidavit to the writ petition. The matter shall
thereafter be listed before the writ court for disposal.
9) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
10) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
ST
Dt: 1 SEPTEMBER, 2026
Negi
HIMANS
HU NEGI
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1
16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A
722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A
1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.09.01 18:07:55 +05'30'
4