Smt. Hirdesh Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant was

suspended as Gram Pradhan by the District Magistrate.

Appellant sought stay of the impugned order. The learned

Single Judge dismissed the Stay Application. The learned

counsel for the appellant, in fact, pointed to the fact that there is

no provision in the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 to

remove Pradhan on the ground that he had obtained caste

certificate wrongly. This is a case where, actually, the Screening

Committee appears to have found that the appellant does not

belong to Scheduled Caste community and belongs to Other

Backward Classes community. The learned Single Judge,

however, repelled the arguments that the order was passed on

the basis of the orders passed by this High Court. The learned

Single Judge also took the view that, as the appellant was not

found to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community in

law, he cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste

community. The learned Single Judge proceeded to hold, prima

facie, that the appellant had not made out a case for grant of

interim relief and took the view that after filing of the counter

affidavit, the matter may be examined, for which two weeks''

time was granted.

We heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel on behalf of

the appellant and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing

Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that

actually under Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj

Act, 2016, there is no power to remove the Pradhan (appellant

herein) on the ground that he had obtained caste certificate as

alleged. Apparently, the matter relates to suspension of the

appellant as Pradhan. Section 138 of the Uttarakhand

Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, apparently, appears to be the law

governing the field. Learned counsel for the appellant would

point out the grounds available for removing a Pradhan and

would submit that the grounds, which are apparently made

against the appellant, are not available in the said provision. In

fact, we notice that in Section 138 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat

Raj Act, 2016, there is a provision relating to suspension of

Pradhan. We notice from the order itself that the learned Single

Judge has noted the argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant that there is no power in the Uttarakhand Panchayat

Raj Act, 2016 to remove the appellant.

In the circumstances, we are of the view, after hearing the

learned Chief Standing Counsel also, that the appellant must be given an opportunity to move review/recall of the impugned

order, where this aspect can be pressed by her.

Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal with liberty to the

appellant to move review/recall, where he can raise all his

contentions, and we also request the learned Single Judge to

dispose of such application at the earliest.

The appeal will stand disposed of as above.

Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself.