Neelam Sanjay Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 763 of 2021. The appellant was not a party to the proceedings wherein the impugned order had been passed, i.e. in the case of Pramod Kumar, who was the petitioner before the Court. The appellant, therefore, seeks leave to appeal to assail the said order.

The case of the appellant is that in the light of the impugned order, the appellant would also be precluded from raising objections to the process of delimitation. The impugned order reads as follows:-

“Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar.

Perusal of record indicates that the said order has been passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar on the direction issued by this Court to decide representation filed by some other villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was not heard in the matter.

Having considered the submission made on behalf of petitioner, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Even otherwise also, Panchayati Raj Act does not provide individual hearing to each villager in these matters.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.”

In another proceeding pending before us, it was stated on behalf of the State Election Commission through counsel that the process of delimitation is already over.

Aforesaid being the position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The Application for leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the Special Appeal also stands dismissed.