NAEEM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Counsel for the State Election Commission and Mr. Suresh Chandra Dumka, learned counsel for sixth respondent-Union of India and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is the erstwhile Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gulargozi, Vikas Khand Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus commanding the State Election Commission and the State Government to conduct the rural local bodies three tier panchayat elections on the basis of the existing un-revised electoral rolls along with the existing and pre-existing constituencies, and to issue election notification for panchayats in the entire State of Uttarakhand, except District Haridwar, as contemplated under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 2016 read with Part IX of the Constitution of India; a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government to render full assistance and co-operation to the State Election Commission to enable them to conduct free and fair elections within the shortest time frame of a stipulated period of 45 days as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others : 2006 (8) SCC 352; a writ of certiorari to call for the original records, quash the impugned notification dated 09.07.2019 issued by the State Government, and permit all three-tier panchayats to perform their duties till the constitution of newly elected panchayats at three levels in rural areas; a writ or direction commanding the Union of India to impose President's Rule in the State of Uttarakhand after dissolving the existing State Government as per Article 356 of the Constitution of India, because it had failed to perform its constitutional obligations as per the mandate of the Constitution of India, and for acting in utter disregard of the constitutional provisions; and to declare Section 130(6) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 2016 as ulta vires the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, in the light of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioner does not wish to press for an adjudication on prayers (iv) and (v) in the present writ petition; and this Court may consider leaving the contentions, raised in relation thereto, open to be agitated by the petitioner, if need be, in subsequent legal proceedings. In the light of submission now made by Sri Jitendra Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, prayer Nos.4 and 5 are dismissed as not pressed, leaving the questions of law, raised in relation thereto, open for examination, if need be, later.