IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 235 of 2010 Irfan S/o Sri Kallu Hasan, R/o Village Bharapur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Additional District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue, Haridwar. 4. Chief Development Officer, Haridwar. 5. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Haridwar. 6. Block Development Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 28.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Admit. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. In a writ petition, a direction was given by this Court to the Collector, Haridwar to decide finally the matter pertaining to delimitation of the Gram Panchyat, as was highlighted by the petitioner in the said writ petition. The Collector, Haridwar decided the same on 7th December 2010 and thereby rejected the contentions of the appellant. Appellant, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a second writ petition contending that the reasons given in support of the order dated 7th December 2010 are not tenable. The said 2 writ petition has been decided by the judgment and order under appeal, whereby and under, it has been held that the reasons so given are sustainable. In the present appeal, it is being contended that the reasons so given are not tenable. It has come to our notice that on 2nd December 2010, steps were taken to initiate election by declaring the dates of doing several things pertaining to the election. No sooner the said notification was made and published, all matters pertaining to delimitation should be deemed to have been closed. In the circumstances, on 7th December 2010, the Collector, instead of passing the order, as was passed, should have rejected the contention of the appellant, as was highlighted in his previous writ petition, only on the ground that he is functus officio in relation to any matter concerning delimitation. If the matter is looked at from that angle, there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal as well as the order dated 7th December 2010 impugned in the writ petition. 4. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal. However, we make it absolutely clear that it shall be deemed that the representation of the appellant was rejected on 7th December 2010 on the ground that the Collector, by that time, lost all authority to deal with delimitation matter and on no other ground and, accordingly, the said order as well as the judgment and order under appeal shall not stand in the way of the appellant, in the event, in future, he canvasses the matter as were canvassed by him in his earlier writ petition. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.12.2010 P. Singh