AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 328 wordsAlok Kumar Verma, J
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to expedite the hearing of pending Revision No. 15 of 2026 "Gopal Singh & another vs. State" as early as possible and further direct the respondent No.3 not to execute the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by him in Case No. 51/01 year 2023-24 under Government Grant Act "State vs. Sri Lal Singh & others" till the disposal of the petitioners stay application filed along with the Revision; otherwise the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by any means. Annexure No. 3 Page 19.
(II) Pass any such other further orders or directions, which are just and proper in the facts of the case.
Amended prayer : Petitioners are pressing only prayer for expedite.”
Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are only pressing the prayer to direct the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, District Nainital to decide the Revision No. 15 of 2026.
The said request has not been opposed by Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, District Nainital is directed to expedite the hearing of Revision No. 15 of 2026, “Gopal Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand” and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, as per law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.
The present Writ Petition (WPMS No.860 of 2026) is disposed of accordingly.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
