Writ petition challenging the sealing of a Madarsa/Maktab by authorities. State conceded the issue was identical to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 835 of 2025; the court decided this petition in terms of that judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:8039
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2642/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. Nishat Intezar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate for the petitioner. |
|||
| 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. |
|||
| 3. By means of this writ petition, |
|||
| petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the order dated 13.04.2025 issued by respondent no. 6 (Annexure No 2 to this writ petition) ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or directions to the Respondents no 6 to immediately de-seal the Petitioner's Madarsa/Maktab and restore its operations iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from stopping Deeni Tamil of petitioner |
|||
| iv. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions declare the sealing of the Madarsa/Maktab as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.” |
|||
| 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by this |
|||
| Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 835 of | |||
| 2025 and submitted that since identical |
2025:UHC:8039
| issue has been decided, therefore, this |
|---|
| petition be also decided in terms of the |
| judgment rendered in the said writ petition. 5. Learned State Counsel concedes |
| that issue involved in both the petitions are identical. 6. In such view of the matter, this petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 26.08.2025 rendered in |
| Writ Petition (M/S) no. 835 of 2025. |
| (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.09.2025 Navin |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sealing of the petitioner's Madarsa/Maktab and stoppage of its religious teaching should be set aside in terms of an identical earlier writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 835 of 2025Relied on¶4
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
