Disposed

Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Oct 2021WPPIL/164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL regarding alleged irregularities in the purchase of fodder and sheep, the High Court declined to interfere with the pending government inquiry. Instead, it directed the Disposing Court - State subject matter - Long judge assignment Petitioner alleged irregularities in the purchase of Fodder and Sheep by the Uttarakhand Sheep and Wool Development Board, contending that fodder available

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a composite representation to the Chief Secretary within two weeks. Chief Secretary to decide within four months after hearing affected persons.

Gauri Maulekhi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ON THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶5

AND

¶6

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶7

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 164 of 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Gauri Maulekhi … Petitioner

¶10

(By Ms. Pragati Sanwal and Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocates)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

¶13

(Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for Deputy Advocate General)

¶14

This Writ Petition (PIL) coming on for hearing this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. delivered the following Judgment:

¶15

JUDGEMENT

¶16

Ms. Pragati Sanwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is directed to delete the name of respondent nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 & 9 from the array of parties. She shall file amended memo of parties, after renumbering the respondents, during the course of the day.

¶17

In this Writ Petition (PIL), petitioner has alleged irregularities in the purchase of ‘Fodder’ & ‘Sheep’ by Uttarakhand Sheep & Wool Development Board. It is contended that Fodder is available at much lower price in Uttarakhand, but it is being purchased from an outside agency at higher price. Various other allegations have been made against certain Authorities.

¶18

¶19

The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:-

¶20

A. Allow the present Petition and thereby issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to take timebound action as per law on the 20 Representations preferred by the petitioner; and

¶21

B. Allow the present Petition and thereby issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 3 (Mr. Anand Vardhan) to complete the inquiry into the various misconducts of Respondents herein within 14 days; and

¶22

C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to prevent the manipulation of evidences/documents pending inquiry & ensure temporary suspension/forced leave/removal/transfer of concerned officers during this inquiry / investigation / cross checking of facts; and

¶23

D. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to stop further promotions/rewards to concerned officers during this inquiry/investigation/cross checking of facts; and

¶24

E. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to initiate & take appropriate punitive/corrective action in a time bound manner, against the erring officers of the Department / Boards / Federations based on the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted by State Government, including but not limited to recovery of losses caused to the Public Exchequer.

¶25

F. Award costs of this Petition to the Petitioner; and

¶26

G. Pass such order or further order[s] as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

¶27

¶28

the present case in and in the interest of justice.

¶29

Ms. Pragati Sanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an enquiry was ordered into purchase of Fodder; however, the Inquiry Officer is yet to complete the enquiry. She further pointed out that petitioner has made several representations to the concerned Authorities, but no decision has been taken on such representations so far.

¶30

Since the State Government has ordered an inquiry, which is still pending, therefore, no interference by this Court in the matter would be called for at this stage.

¶31

In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition (PIL) is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a composite representation, highlighting all her grievances in the matter of purchase of Fodder and Sheep, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand. If such representation is made by the petitioner within two weeks from today, Chief Secretary shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within four months from the date of production of such representation before him.

¶32

It goes without saying that before taking any decision, Chief Secretary shall hear all persons, who are going to be affected by his decision.

¶33

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)

¶34

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶35

Aswal

Gauri Maulekhi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Maulekhi 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

Westerngeco International Ltd. Vs Additional Director Of Income Tax

Westerngeco International Ltd. Vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax

Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Commissionerate Vs M/s Bee Am Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Uttarkahand

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madhavi Sanjay Goswami Vs Uttarakhand Ayurved University through Its Registrar