Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC18 Nov 2021WPMS/2404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a government servant alleging persecuted by three officials, filed a writ petition seeking an inquiry and mandamus to decide a complaint. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that FIR and private disputes fall under the Code of Criminal Procedure, not writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the reliefs sought cannot be granted in a private dispute.

Jagdish Prasad Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2404 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Jagdish Prasad Bhatt .....Petitioner

¶9

(By Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents

¶12

(By Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy A.G. for the State/respondents)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

H eard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:

¶16

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to respondent authorities to conduct inquiry regarding the allegations leveled by the petitioner pursuant to the complaint dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure no. 13).

¶17

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.2 to decide the complaint dated 04.01.2020 with stipulated time bound period. (Annexure no.13)

¶18

III. Issue a suitable writ, order of direction infavour of petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶19

3. Petitioner is a Government Servant, who is

¶20

serving as Assistant Accounts Officer in Audit and Accounts Department of Uttarakhand State. He is presently posted in Fisheries Department. According to him, he made a complaint on 04.01.2020 to number of

¶21

¶22

State authorities, wherein he has requested to take action on his earlier complaint dated 16.12.2019 and to lodge F.I.R. against three officers of State Secretariat, namely, Shri Chauhan, Shri Rawat and Shri Mishra under relevant sections of Code of Criminal Procedure. The persons, against whom petitioner wants F.I.R to be registered, are not party in this writ petition.

¶23

Grudge of the petitioner is that these three officers were instrumental in getting him transferred from Department of Medical Health in the year 2018, due to which, petitioner’s interests were prejudiced.

¶24

The reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. If petitioner wants an F.I.R to be lodged against any individual/officer, then he has a remedy under Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court while exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not entertain private disputes between two individuals.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶26

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶27

Nahid

¶28

Jagdish Prasad Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Bhatt 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs Ashutosh Sharma

Smt Sushila Paschimi Vs P C Dumka

Gopal Ram Vs v. K. Saini

Reenu Rani Vs Ranveer Singh

Harish Chandra Pant Vs Vijay Kumar Jogdande

Tikam Singh Vs Director Rehabilitation Tehri Dam Project