If one does not fulfill the criteria prescribed in the Government Policy for identification as Rajya Andolankari, they cannot claim to be declared as Rajya Andolankari: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI WRIT PETITIONNo. 13016 Rohitash Thakur & others. ....Petitioners State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondents WRIT PETITIONNo. 218 WRIT PETITIONNo. 218 There is no representation for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal and Mr. Rakesh Kunwar Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However for the sake of convenience facts of WPMS No. 13016 are being considered. According to the petitioners they participated in Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan. Since the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari were not given to them therefore they filed WPMS No. 2437 of 2013 seeking a direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the process of verification of petitioners as Rajya Andolankari. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2014 in the light of statement made by learned State Counsel that if petitioners make representation the same shall be considered by the District Magistrate in the light of Government Policy. Since the representation submitted by the petitioners has been rejected by the District Magistrate vide order dated 13.06.2014 therefore petitioners have again approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. To issue a writ order or directions in the nature of “certiorari” quashing the office order dated 13.6.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 by the way of which the authority has refused to identify the petitioner as “Uttarakhand Rajaya Andolankari”. 2. To issue a writ order or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take fresh decision over the representations made by the petitioners impartially and in accordance with the selection identification process adopted by the authorities in case of Heard learned Additional C.S.C. and perused the record. A perusal of the order passed by District Magistrate impugned in the writ petition reveals that petitioners could not produce any evidence in support of their claim that they had actively participated in the Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan. Learned Additional C.S.C. has drawn attention of this Court to Government Order dated 22.10.2008 in which criteria has been laid down for identification as Rajya Andolankari which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Based on the said document learned Additional C.S.C. submits that name of the petitioners does not find mention in the L.I.U. Report or in any other document enumerated in the Government Order dated 22.10.2008. He further submits that as per 3 the pleading made in the writ petition the only evidence which petitioners have in support of their claim is a news item published in some local weekly newspaper named as ‘Laghu Bharat’. He submits that such news report cannot be made the basis for the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari. He further submits that name of none of the petitioners’ figures in the L.I.U. Report or any other report available with the Police record. It is not in dispute that upon identification as Rajya Andolankari a person becomes entitled to several benefits monetary or otherwise therefore the State Government in its wisdom has laid down certain criteria for identification as Rajya Andolankari. A person who does not fulfill the criteria as prescribed in the as Rajya Andolankari cannot claim to be declared as Rajya Andolankari. In the absence of any evidence in support of their claim petitioners have no legally enforceable right to be declared as Rajya Andolankari. In such view of the matter the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. In the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioners District Magistrate was justified in rejecting petitioners’ representation. dismissed. Accordingly the writ petitions fail and are Arpan 

Summary: Upon identification as Rajya Andolankari, a person becomes entitled to several benefits, monetary or otherwise, therefore, the State Government, in its wisdom, has laid down certain criteria for identification as Rajya Andolankari. Hence a person has to fulfill such criteria to be identified as Andolankari. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Rohitash Thakur &amp; others Vs. State of Uttarakhand &amp; others (WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1300 of 2016), dealt with an issue where two writ petitions were heard and decided together because of common questions of fact and law, seeking To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of “certiorari”, quashing the office order by the way of which the authority has refused to identify the petitioner as “Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari” and to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take a fresh decision over the representations made by the petitioners. In the present case, as per the petitioners, they participated in Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the process of verification of petitioners as Rajya Andolankari because the petitioners were not given the benefits that were available to Rajya Andolankari. The writ was disposed of by state counsel to make representation at district magistrate to consider it in the light of Government Policy. The district magistrate further rejected it, and thereby the petitioners approached this court.  Additional C.S.C pointed out the order passed by the District Magistrate that those petitioners could not produce any evidence in support of their claim that they had actively participated in the Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan. He also submitted that the petitioners did not have their name in the L.I.U. Report or in any other document enumerated in the Government Order. Further submitted that the only evidence the petitioner had to support his claim was a news item published in some local weekly newspaper named as ‘Laghu Bharat’. But also contended, that such news report could not be considered as a basis for the benefits to Rajya Andolankari. The court observed that-“In the absence of any evidence in support of their claim, petitioners have no legally enforceable right to be declared as Rajya Andolankari.” Thereby the writ petition was rejected and dismissed.