IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1087 of 2011 Mahaveer Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Pracheta Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri. Pracheta Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners have challenged the election of respondent no.1 as Gram Pradhan for Gram Sabha Dabki Kalan, Tehsil and P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar. The principal contention of the petitioner is that respondent no.1 was elected on reserved seat of woman Scheduled Caste though she was not even a Scheduled Caste as by birth she belongs to Other Backward Class (from hereinafter referred to as OBC) and was married to Hindu Guzzar which is again an OBC. Since she was born in an OBC she cannot claim to be a woman Scheduled Caste candidate and therefore she has wrongly claimed benefit of reservation in recently concluded election. The relevant portion of Section 95 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which are presently applicable, reads as follows:- “Section 95. Inspection.- (1) The State Government may- (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… 2 (f)… (g) [remove a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchyayat if he]- (i)… (ii)… (iii)… (iii-a) has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be.]” The remedy therefore for the aforesaid relief lies before the State Government. Admittedly, the petitioners have not exhausted this remedy. The petitioners are therefore permitted to move appropriate representation/application before respondent no.3 who shall dispose of the representation/application of the petitioner in accordance with law particularly in view of Section 95 (1)(g)(iii-a) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 by affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as respondent no.1 as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of. No order is as to costs. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 7.6.2011 Kuldeep