Order allowing writ petition set aside; affected appellant granted opportunity to file counter-affidavit before fresh adjudication.

The appellant challenged the order dated 30 April 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1187 of 2026.

The writ petition had been filed by respondent No. 1 alleging that the appellant was disqualified from contesting for, and holding, the offices of Member and President of the Zila Panchayat because he was registered as a voter both in the concerned Zila Panchayat and in the Municipal Corporation, Roorkee.

Respondent No. 1 claimed that although he had submitted a complaint in December 2023, no enquiry had been conducted under Section 90(4) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016.

The learned Single Judge directed the District Election Officer/District Magistrate to decide the complaint within three months.

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge could be sustained when it was passed without notice to, or opportunity of hearing being given to, the appellant, whose alleged disqualification was directly in issue.

Whether the complaint alleging the appellant’s disqualification under the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 could be decided by the District Election Officer/District Magistrate after the election had been held, or whether the dispute was required to be raised through an election petition.

Whether registration as a voter in both the concerned Zila Panchayat and the Municipal Corporation, Roorkee, attracted disqualification under Section 90 or any other applicable provision.

The dispute involved the disqualification provisions of Section 90, including the enquiry mechanism under Section 90(4), and Sections 8 and 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person whose eligibility or legal rights are directly affected must receive notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed.

The appellant also relied upon the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arguing that the alleged facts did not create disqualification under that enactment.

The Division Bench noted that the learned Single Judge had issued directions concerning the appellant’s alleged disqualification without first impleading or hearing him, despite the complaint directly affecting his right to hold elected office.

The appellant raised substantial objections regarding the applicability of Section 90, the relevance of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the availability of an election petition as the appropriate remedy.

The State Election Commission, while referring to Sections 138 and 8 of the 2016 Act, could not explain how the District Election Officer would retain jurisdiction to decide the complaint after the election had taken place.

Since the parties agreed that the matter should be reconsidered after the appellant was permitted to file a counter-affidavit, the Court set aside the impugned order without expressing any final opinion on the merits or jurisdictional objections.

The appellant was granted ten days to file a counter-affidavit in the writ petition, after which the matter was directed to be listed before the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal.

The appeal and pending applications, if any, were accordingly disposed of.

No final determination was made regarding whether the appellant was disqualified, whether the District Election Officer/District Magistrate had jurisdiction, or whether the dispute was maintainable only through an election petition.