Disposed

V G R a S S P Services a Proprietorship Firm v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC3 Mar 2022WPMS/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of a writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent within ten days. It directed the respondent to decide the grievance within three weeks and quashed to the extent necessary related orders without providing substantive reasons for the quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make fresh representation within 10 days; Respondent directed to decide within 3 weeks; Impugned orders set aside to that extent.

V G R a S S P Services a Proprietorship Firm Vs… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 364 of 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VGRASSP Services, A Proprietorship Firm ...Petitioner

¶9

(By Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Uttarakhand & another ...Respondents

¶12

(By Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. In the year 2020, petitioner was awarded two contracts, by Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Uttarakhand, for operating helpdesk and huddle room, in various districts of Uttarakhand.

¶16

3. According to the petitioner, one year after award of contract, Director, Panchayati Raj issued a letter, asking petitioner to novate the terms of contract. Against that letter, petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions, namely, WPMS No. 2095 of 2021 & WPMS No. 2096 of 2021, which were dismissed on the ground that they are premature and also on the ground that petitioner had a remedy available under the contract.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had approached the Competent

¶18

¶19

Authority, by invoking relevant clause of the contract for dispute resolution and petitioner had also named three mediators, however, petitioner’s request for dispute resolution was rejected.

¶20

5. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

¶21

“i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 issued by the Respondent (contained as Annexure no. 17 to this writ petition).

¶22

ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned letter/order dated 18-02-2022 issued by respondent (contained as Annexure no. 20 to this writ petition).

¶23

iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to make upto date payment of the petitioner for the services rendered by them for the respondent no. 2.”

¶24

6. After arguing for a while, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make fresh representation to respondent no. 2 for highlighting his grievance and respondent no. 2 may be directed to take decision thereupon.

¶25

7. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned State Counsel submits that if petitioner makes representation, then the same shall be considered, as per law.

¶26

8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to respondent no. 2 within ten days from today. If such representation is made, respondent no. 2 shall consider the matter and pass appropriate order, as per law, within three weeks thereafter

¶27

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶28

Navin

V G R a S S P Services a Proprietorship Firm v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V G R a S S P Services a Proprietorship Firm v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Anjani Rice Mill Vs the Nainital Bank Limited

Shimla Enclae Welfare Society Sewa Having Its Office Vs Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority Dehradun

Govind Ballabh Awasthi Vs Vinay Kumar Bhargarv

Shakuntala Vs Pankaj Kumar Panday

Mrs. Satyawati Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Committee of Management R S Dhillon Janta Inter College Vs R C Arya