Neha Bijalwan vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The appellant-applicant herein is not a party to Writ Petition (M/S) No.2740 of 2019. She is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Director, Panchayati Raj to consider the writ petitioner's representation. Consequent upon the order under appeal being passed, the Director, Panchayati Raj, by his order dated 16.09.2019, changed the reservation of constituencies. As the applicant is aggrieved by the order under appeal, leave as sought for is granted.

The fourth respondent herein had filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.2740 of 2019 and, by order dated 13.09.2019, the learned Single Judge had directed the Director, Panchayati Raj to decide the writ petitioner's representation giving brief reasons as to why he had passed the order.

In compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2740 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, the Diector, Panchayati Raj passed an order dated 16.09.2019; and it is this order which the appellant-applicant is aggrieved by.

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, would submit that, in view of the bar under Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the order impugned in the Special Appeal since the State Government had already issued the election notification on 13.09.2019.

The power of judicial review, conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others: AIR 1997 SC 1125). Such a power cannot, therefore, be negated or circumscribed even by an amendment to the Constitution, let alone by Legislation- plenary or subordinate. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would bear-in-mind the limitations placed on interference, with election related disputes, after an election notification is issued. That does not mean that the High Court can, under no circumstance, interfere with the election process. All that the learned Single Judge has done, in the order under appeal, is to direct the Director, Panchayati Raj to consider the representation of the Writ Petitioner.

The appellant-applicant cannot claim to be aggrieved by such a direction. What she is aggrieved by is decision of the Director, Panchayati Raj dated 16.09.2019 changing the reservation from one constituency to another. It is always open to the appellant-applicant to question the order of the Director, Panchayati Raj dated 16.09.2019 in appropriate legal proceedings. We see no reason, however, to interfere with the order under appeal.

Leaving it open to the appellant-applicant to question the order of the Director, Panchayati Raj dated 16.09.2019 in appropriate legal proceedings, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, by 27.09.2019, on payment of the prescribed charges.