Dismissed¶35

Arti v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Apr 2026SPA/52/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court (Nainital), Special Appeal No. 52 of 2026, decided 07.04.2026 - Arti v. State of Uttarakhand & others - intra-court (Division Bench) appeal; 48-day delay condoned; locus standi of Parents-Teachers Association President; Regulation 12(7) of Regulations framed under the Uttarakhand Education Act; transfer of Government Inter College land to Health Department; Critical Care Unit; residential accommodation for Doctors; judicial review of State land-transfer/allotment decisions; custodian of public land; writ petition dismissed on locus and merits; Special Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Only the delay in filing the appeal was condoned; no substantive relief was granted - the Special Appeal was dismissed and pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of. ¶35

Arti Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only the delay in filing the appeal was condoned; no substantive relief was granted - the Special Appeal was dismissed and pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 48 days in filing the Special Appeal should be condoned. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

The cause shown for the 48-day delay in filing the Special Appeal was found satisfactory and unopposed by learned State counsel; accordingly, the delay is condoned.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the appellant had locus to maintain the writ petition as President of the Parents-Teachers Association, the Division Bench found no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, whose findings in that regard were not under challenge.

¶34

Key takeaways

The institution (Government Inter College) itself admittedly did not come forward with any grievance, which weighed against interference on behalf of the institution.ratio¶30
It is not disputed that Education and Health are both wings of the State Government, and the State Government took the decision on the use of the land keeping public interest and requirements in mind.ratio¶30
The wisdom of the Government in deciding the manner of use of its land cannot be subjected to judicial review unless the decision is shown to be totally illegal or arbitrary; the learned Single Judge was right in so holding.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay) dismissed a Special Appeal against the Single Judge's rejection of a writ petition filed by the appellant, claiming to be President of the Parents-Teachers Association, and one Budhi Singh Panwar, challenging the Government's transfer of land belonging to Government Inter College to the Health Department (earlier earmarked for a Critical Care Unit but subsequently allotted for residential accommodation for Doctors). Endorsing the writ court, the Bench held that Education and Health are both wings of the State Government, that the State in public interest can transfer land from one department to another, and that the wisdom of the Government in such matters cannot be subjected to judicial review unless the decision is shown to be totally illegal or arbitrary. Even assuming locus under Regulation 12(7) of the Regulations framed under the Uttarakhand Education Act, no interference was warranted, particularly as the institution itself had raised no grievance. The 48-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned as satisfactory and unopposed.

¶1

2026:UHC:2458-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

¶6

7^th April, 2026

¶7

Special Appeal No. 52 of 2026

Arti

------Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents

¶12

Presence:-

¶13

Mr. Reituparan Joshi and Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Rajiv Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.M.S.Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶15

JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

¶16

The appeal is reported to be beyond time by

¶17

48 days.

¶18

The cause shown for delay in filing the

¶19

appeal is found to be satisfactory. There is also no opposition to the delay condonation application by learned State counsel. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

¶20

The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.12.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3407 of 2025, Arti vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming himself to

¶21

¶22

2026:UHC:2458-DB

¶23

be President of Parents-Teacher Association challenging the decision of the Government in allotting a piece of land belonging to Government Inter College, to the Health wing of the Government, has been rejected on ground of locus of the petitioner as well as on merits.

¶24

It appears that the land-in-question was donated by the father of petitioner no.2 to the writ proceedings to Government Inter College.

¶25

It further appears that the District Hospital is situated in the vicinity of the Government Inter College. The Government in order to construct the Critical Care Unit in the Hospital transferred the land to the Health department, however, the Critical Care Unit was not constructed on the said land but at some other place. Subsequently, the same land was allotted for construction of residential accommodation for Doctors. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein claiming to be President of Parents-Teacher Association and one Budhi Singh Panwar alleging that the land-in-question was donated by his father to the college, challenged the action of the Government by filing the writ Petition. The writ petition has been dismissed by the writ court both on the ground of locus and on merits observing that

¶26

¶27

2026:UHC:2458-DB

¶28

the Education and Health Department are both wings of the State Government and the State Government in public interest can transfer the land from one department to another. It has also been observed that the State Government is the custodian of public land and the decision taken by the District Administration cannot be questioned in a writ petition, especially when the decision is aimed at augmenting medical facilities in a remote hill town of the State of Uttarakhand.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulation 12 (7) of the Regulation framed under the Uttarakhand Education Act, enjoins upon the Managing Committee of the Parents-Teachers Association the duty to ensure preservation of the properties of the institution. He submits that in view of the said provision, the appellant as President of Parents-Teachers Association had the locus to maintain the writ petition.

¶30

The institution has admittedly not come forward with any grievance. It is not disputed that the Education and Health, are both wings of the State Government. The State Government keeping in mind the public interest and the requirements had taken

¶31

¶32

2026:UHC:2458-DB

¶33

decision for use of land in a particular manner. The learned Single Judge is right in saying that the wisdom of the Government in this regard cannot be subjected to judicial review unless the decision is shown to be totally illegal or arbitrary.

¶34

The findings of the learned Single Judge, in this regard are also not under challenge. Consequently, even if we accept that the appellant had locus to maintain the writ petition, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.

¶35

9. The Special Appeal is dismissed.

¶36