Dismissed

Sanpreet Singh Ajmani v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC5 Feb 2024WPMS/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. disposed of three batched writ petitions. The Court observed that an adjudication by a State Government committee had already been completed. Extension days to challenge said committee order were granted while pending the new challenge, and no demolition was to be carried out during that period. Petitions were disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners have 10 days to challenge the committee order, till which time no demolition shall be made.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No.216 of 2024
With
WPMS No.218 of 2024
WPMS No.233 of 2024
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned for the
petitioner in WPMS Nos. 216 of 2024, 218 of 2024
and 233 of 2024.
2.
Mr. Bhavya Pratap Singh Rautela and Mr.
Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WPMS No.219 of 2024.
3.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, Mr. Yogesh Tiwari and Mr.
S.K. Naiwal, learned Standing Counsel(s) with Mr.
S.M.S. Mehta and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief
Holder(s) for the State.

4.
In these batch of writ petition(s), the
petitioners
have
challenged
the
notice
dated
08.01.2024 issued by respondent-Nagar Nigam, by
which the demolition order was passed to demolish
the part of the property in-question.
5.
This Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 has
given respite to the petitioner saying that the
committee constituted by order of the State
Government shall adjudicate the objection given by
the petitioner(s) before it after giving due hearing to
the petitioners.
6.
Today learned counsel for the parties without
any difference admitted that the adjudication has been
done by the committee, constituted by the State

Government, in which, Nagar Nigam is one of the member.
7. It is admitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the matter has now been adjudicated
upon the objection after hearing the petitioners and
order of the committee dated 03.02.2024 is served upon petitioner today on 05.02.2024.
8. In this view of the new development, in the
opinion of this Court, the writ petition(s) have
rendered infructuous because the petitioners have
now to challenge the order passed by the committee
by which the objection of the petitioners have been
adjudicated.
9. Thus the writ petition(s) stand disposed-off
with a direction that the petitioners are given ten days
time to challenge the order passed by the committee
so constituted by the State Government, and till then
no demolition shall be made pursuant to the notices
impugned in the writ petition(s).
WPMS No.219 of 2024
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner in this writ petition that till date the
adjudication of the objection of the petitioner has not
been made.
11. This writ petition is also disposed-off in light
of other writ petition(s) and it is provided that the
committee constituted by the State Government shall
decide the objection of the petitioner within 7 days,
from the date of this order and after that if the
committee passes any adverse order to the petitioner,
he shall be at liberty to challenge the said order

Government, in which, Nagar Nigam is one of the
member.

7.
It is admitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that the matter has now been adjudicated

upon the objection after hearing the petitioners and

order of the committee dated 03.02.2024 is served
upon petitioner today on 05.02.2024.

8.
In this view of the new development, in the

opinion of this Court, the writ petition(s) have

rendered infructuous because the petitioners have

now to challenge the order passed by the committee

by which the objection of the petitioners have been

adjudicated.

9.
Thus the writ petition(s) stand disposed-off

with a direction that the petitioners are given ten days

time to challenge the order passed by the committee

so constituted by the State Government, and till then

no demolition shall be made pursuant to the notices

impugned in the writ petition(s).

WPMS No.219 of 2024

10.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner in this writ petition that till date the

adjudication of the objection of the petitioner has not

been made.

11.
This writ petition is also disposed-off in light

of other writ petition(s) and it is provided that the

committee constituted by the State Government shall

decide the objection of the petitioner within 7 days,

from the date of this order and after that if the

committee passes any adverse order to the petitioner,

he shall be at liberty to challenge the said order

within 10 days from the d committee and for 10 days the made pursuant to the notice petition.	ate de im	of decision of the molition shall not be pugned in the writ
12. Let a certified copy of t	his	order be supplied to
the learned counsel for the	par	ties today itself on
payment of usual charges.
SK		(Pankaj Purohit, J.) Vacation Judge 05.02.2024

within 10 days from the d
committee and for 10 days the
made pursuant to the notice
petition.

ate
de
im

of decision of the
molition shall not be
pugned in the writ

12.
Let a certified copy of t

his

order be supplied to

the learned counsel for the

par

ties today itself on

payment of usual charges.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
Vacation Judge
05.02.2024

Sanpreet Singh Ajmani v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanpreet Singh Ajmani 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

Harjeet Singh Sahota Vs Cheema Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Gajendra Kumar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Thdc India Limited

Sahab Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hotel Happy Home Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ok Hotel Vs State of Uttarakhand