Dismissed¶8

Hukum Singh v. District Magistrate

Uttarakhand HC6 Apr 2026WPMS/3684/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi; writ petition dismissed in limine. Petitioner Hukum Singh (counsel: Sagar Kothari) sought Court intervention over alleged non-utilisation, since 2011-12, of loans advanced under a Government scheme by respondent officials (nos. 2, 4 and 5) to respondent nos. 6-8 for construction of a hotel, restaurant and tent house colony, and over alleged grabbing of subsidy, reportedly confirmed in a report/spot inspection conducted by the respondents; respondents included the District Magistrate (counsel: B.S. Koranga for State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5; K.K. Tiwari for respondent no. 4). Held: petitioner had no locus to maintain the petition against respondent nos. 6-8, it not being a Public Interest Litigation; Court not inclined to interfere; petitioner advised he may maintain a PIL, if so advised; petition dismissed in limine. Judge: Pankaj Purohit (sole member), order dated 06.04.2026. No statutory provisions or precedent cases cited; no amounts stated.

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.3684 of 2025 Hukum Singh …………Petitioner Vs. District Magistrate and others ……….Respondents Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned B.H. for the State/respondent no.1 to 3 and 5. 3. Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the premise that the loan was advanced to the respondent nos.6 to 8 under some Government scheme by the respondent nos.2, 4 and 5 for construction of hotel, restaurant and tent house colony in the year 2011-12. 5. It is grievance of the petitioner that nothing has been done on this side and the loan has never been utilized by respondent nos.5 to 7 which according to the petitioner has been confirmed in the report/spot inspection conducted by the respondents except grabbing the subsidy given in those loans. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no locus to maintain the present writ petition and that too against respondent nos.6 to 8. This is not a Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner has no locus to file such a writ petition. He may maintain the P.I.L, if so advised. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 8. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed_in limine_.
		(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.04.2026 SK

Hukum Singh v. District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukum Singh v. District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinku Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pramod Kumar Vs Chief Agriculture Officer

Mahendra Singh and Others Vs District Magistrate

India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Vikram Singh Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ms Sandhu Road Lines Vs Punjab National Bank