Dehradun, July 18 -- The Uttarakhand high court has stayed the disqualification of a candidate for the post of pradhan in Udvakhand gram panchayat in Tehri Garhwal district as well as another panchayat poll candidate from Tehri district. In the first case, the gram pradhan candidate was barred from contesting the elections as her toilet was located 150 metres from her dwelling house. The division bench of chief justice G Narendar and justice Alok Mahra during a hearing on Wednesday found the Returning Officer's decision to be prima facie a "clear case of malfeasance" and an arbitrary exercise of authority. The petitioner, Kusum Kothiyal, represented by counsel Abhijay Negi, challenged the disqualification, arguing that no copy of the complaint was provided to her, nor was she given an opportunity to explain before a local inquiry was ordered. The matter pertained to a complaint alleging that the petitioner had no toilet at her house. A local inspection by the village panchayat development officer confirmed that a toilet was constructed, but noted its distance from the dwelling was 150 metres. The high court observed that photographs also clearly demonstrated the presence of the toilet. It noted in its order, "A perusal of the photographs also clearly demonstrates the presence of the toilet. In that view, the order impugned, prima facie, appears to be a clear case of malfeasance, where the authority has sought to exercise its authority in an arbitrary and mala fide manner, probably in order to enable the election of a favoured candidate. The election being to the post of Pradhan, the Returning Officer appears to have exceeded his power, in attempting to interpret clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016." The high court maintained, "It is a known and prevalent practice in the villages that toilets are always constructed at a distance from the dwelling house for obvious reasons, and also for reasons of hygiene. There is no finding by the Returning Officer that the toilet does not belong to the petitioner, or that the toilet is not constructed by the petitioner." According to Section 8(3)(b) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, "If there is no toilets established in the house of those persons residing in the jurisdiction of concerned Panchayat, they shall be disqualified for the candidature of the Panchayat election." Sanjay Bhatt, Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, contended that the toilet should be within the dwelling house based on the Act. He also cited Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, which restricts challenging Panchayat elections except through an election petition. However, the court countered that the present writ petition questioned the illegal rejection of a nomination, not the election itself, and that denying the right to contest in an arbitrary manner was illegal. Negi said after hearing the matter, the high court stayed the operation of the impugned order, directing the Returning Officer to assign a symbol to the petitioner, print her name on the ballot paper, and permit her to participate in the election process for Gram Pradhan. The high court also directed the State Election Commissioner to conduct an inquiry into the matter and submit a report to the high court by the next hearing date scheduled on August 11. In the second case, the nomination of petitioner Seeta Devi was rejected based on a questionable "No Dues Certificate". She is contesting from Bhutsi village in Tehri district for the post of zila panchayat member. The case was heard by division bench of chief justice G Narendar and justice Alok Mahra on Wednesday. The court heard arguments of Abhijay Negi, Snigdha Tiwari, Ayush Pokhriyal, representing the petitioner, and Sanjay Bhatt, who appeared for the State Election Commission. The high court in its order said, "Accordingly there shall be a stay of the 'Cancelled-List' in so far as it relates to the Petitioner and further there shall be an interim direction, directing the Returning Officer to allot a symbol to the petitioner and print the name of the petitioner in the ballot papers and permit him to participate in the election process in respect of Ward No. 5 Bhutsi Panchayat (in Tehri district). According to the high court order, the Returning Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination after a competing candidate alleged that the "No Dues Certificate" "seems" to be fake. The court noted that the Returning Officer initially objected to the certificate, claiming it was not issued by the bank's secretary, despite no rules or regulations supporting this stance. The petitioner subsequently obtained another certificate from the bank, issued by the secretary himself, explicitly stating no loans were granted and no amounts were due. Despite the production of this second, duly issued certificate, the nomination was still rejected, leaving the objector as the sole candidate. The high court, in its order, stated that "Prima facie, it appears that the Returning Officer has acted in a patently illegal manner, probably to influence the election of the other candidate." The court further criticised the Returning Officer for "blatantly and arbitrarily" concluding the certificate was fake "even without an inquiry with the Co-operative Bank, or any expert opinion." Abhijay Negi said he argued that no formal rejection order was passed, only that the petitioner's name was placed in the list of rejected candidates. The court emphasised that it "cannot turn a blind eye to these apparent patent illegalities, which appear to be pre-meditated and motivated and in utter disregard of the Law of the Land". The high court also addressed objections regarding its jurisdiction to entertain such petitions. Citing Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution, which pertains to questioning panchayat elections, the court clarified that the present writ petition questions the "per se illegal rejection of the nomination of the petitioner, for which there is no efficacious remedy," and that the relief sought is "in furtherance of the elections and not in detriment of the election". The high court has also sought the immediate intervention of the State Election Commissioner to ensure appropriate instructions are issued to Returning Officers to prevent such illegalities in the future....