Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC14 Dec 2020WPMS/2396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-implementation of an order disqualifying a ward member. The court held that since the respondent was already disqualified by the District Magistrate, law would take its course and no further direction was needed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with explicit observation that no further direction is needed as law will take its course.

Pankaj Kumar Bansal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Municipal and Town Planning | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 2396 of 2020

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

According to the petitioner, District Magistrate, Haridwar has passed an order on 15.10.2020, whereby he has disqualified respondent no. 5 from continuing in office as Ward Member (Ward No. IV). According to the petitioner, respondent no. 5 is not being removed from office, despite the said order.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶8

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision on representation dated 19.10.2020 (annexure to this writ petition) in pursuance to the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate Haridwar and reference letter dated 29.10.2020 (annexure to this writ petition) sent by the District Magistrate Haridwar forthwith preferably within 15 days.

¶9

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the post of “Ward Member, Ward Number IV” Nagar Palika Parishad Laksar district Haridwar vacant in view of the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate Haridwar whereby the respondent number five Smt. Nita Panchal disqualified as “Ward Member, Ward Number IV” Nagar Palika Parishad Laksar district Haridar.

¶10

III. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to seized financial and administrative power of the respondent number five Smt. Nita Panchal having in the capacity of

¶11

Member Ward Number four, Nagar Palika Parishad Laksar district Haridwar.

¶12

Petitioner appears to have some personal vendetta against respondent no. 5, therefore, he has filed this writ petition. District Magistrate, Haridwar has send copy of his order to various authorities, including Director, Urban Development, Uttarakhand for necessary action.

¶13

Since respondent no. 5 has been disqualified, therefore, law will take its own course, therefore, no further direction in the matter is needed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

Aswal

¶15

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 14.12.2020

Pankaj Kumar Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Verma Vs Almora Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gandhi Chowk Pithoragarh

Ravilal Vs Canara Bank Balbhadrapur

Anandi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivang Mathur Vs Sri Sohan Lal

Sri Serveshwar Mahadev Vaikunth Dham Mukti Dwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Mayur Industries Vs State of Uttarakhand