High CourtsSingle Bench

Govind Singh vs R.K. Sudhanshu

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 UK CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 55 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

17 paragraphs · 291 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner filed WPPIL No. 125 of 2020 seeking mandamus to the respondents to connect Tok-Patori (Patoli) of Village â€" Pokhari to Chaubatiya-

Khairna Motor Marg. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Public Works Department to take decision on

petitioner’s representation within four weeks.

2.

According to the petitioner, although Secretary, Public Works Department has taken decision on petitioner’s representation, and in the order,

whereby his representation was decided, petitioner was assured that his village would be connected to Chaubatiya-Khairna Motor Marg, however,

when actual construction is taking place, petitioner’s village is not being connected to the said road.

3.

A compliance affidavit has been filed by Mr. R.K. Sudhabshu, Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Dehradun, wherein it is stated that

road in question is being constructed by Local M.L.A. from Legislative Fund and Public Works Department has no control over construction of the

road.

4.

Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that this is not a case of wilful disobedience of the order of this

Court, as the road, which petitioner wants to pass through his village, is not being constructed by Public Works Department and it is being constructed

by the fund provided by Local M.L.A.

5.

Since the only direction was to take decision on petitioner’s representation and such decision has been taken, therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that no case for proceeding for contempt is made out against the opposite party.

6.

In such view of the matter, contempt petition is closed. Notice issued to the opposite party is hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at

liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.