Allowed

Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Dec 2021WPMS/1269/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge judgment allowed a writ petition under Article 226 by quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar. The court restored the Consolidation Revision matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar, noting no reason for re-transferring the case without a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order dated 28.07.2020 passed by Collector, Haridwar; Consolidation Revision No. 46 of 2017-18 restored to file of Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar; no order as to costs.

Yashpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Public Procurement and Tenders | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) 1269 of 2020

¶3

Yashpal Singh

¶4

.......….......Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Uttarakhand and others ……...Respondents

¶7

Date of hearing and Judgement : 02.12.2021

¶8

Advocates appeared in the case:-

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶10

For Respondents : Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the private respondents.

¶11

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

¶12

Heard Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the private respondents.

¶13

In this case, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2020, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Haridwar, in Consolidation Revision No. 46 of 2017-18, whereby the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar recalled the records of the case for hearing by recording the impugned order on a letter by respondent no.2 addressed to the Chief Secretary of

¶14

¶15

the State of Uttarakhand, in the later pad of Lingaya’s University. There is no contest in the writ application. In fact, the Collector, Haridwar, who had passed the impugned order has been transferred. There appears to be no reason to re-transferring the case to the court of the Collector without passing a proper order and hearing the parties.

¶16

Hence, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 28.07.2020 passed by the Collector, Haridwar in the Revision Application is quashed. The Consolidation Revision No. 46 of 2017-18 is hereby restored to the file of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar who shall consider the case on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Magistrate on 23^rd of December, 2021 after receiving the certified copy of this Order. On such an event, the Revision Application shall be taken to his file and the matter shall be heard according to law by fixing a suitable date as per pendency of cases before him.

¶17

With such observation, the writ application is disposed of.

¶18

There shall be no order as to the costs.

¶19

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶20

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

¶21

KKS

¶22

Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal Singh 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

Chandra Mohan Bhatt Vs Chandra Mohan Kharakwal

M/S Jyothy Laboratories Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun

Ashwini Kumar Rana Vs Vinita Devi

Hemant Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashok Kumar Lohni Vs Lalit Mohan Kandpal

M/S R K Mills through Its Authorized Partner Vs Premlata Chauhan