Abdul Gani vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—On a writ petition, a direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioner (appellant herein). This representation was rejected by an order dated 7th December, 2010. Reasons for rejecting the representation were incorporated in the order. Appellant filed another writ petition challenging the reasons in support of the order. That writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, whereby and under, a learned Singh Judge of this Court has held that the reasons are sustainable. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

It has come to our notice that on 2nd December, 2010, steps were taken for holding election by publishing the schedule of the election. In such view of the matter, the representation that was to be considered by the District Magistrate, Haridwar and which was considered and decided by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 7th December 2010, should have been rejected in limine, for after steps have been taken for holding election, no steps could be taken in relation to delimitation of the constituencies. That being the situation, we hold that the reasons furnished in the order dated 7th December, 2010 are of no effect but the said order should be upheld on the ground that as on 7th December 2010, the District Magistrate had no other option but to dismiss the representation in limine, inasmuch as, by then, steps to hold election had been taken. We make it amply clear that the reasons furnished in the order of the District Magistrate dated 7th December, 2010 as well as the reasons furnished in the order under appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant, in the event, the appellant, in future seeks to contend what he had contended in the representation, which was decided by the order of the District Magistrate dated 7th December 2010.

This disposes of the appeal.