CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajendra Singh Mauray vs District Magistrate and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 August 2010 · Citation: (2010) 08 UK CK 0082

HON’BLE JUDGES
Brahma Singh Verma, J
Download PDFAsk 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

6 paragraphs · 360 words

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents 1 and 5, and Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to permit any vendor to sell their goods on any illegal market and to direct them to install their shops at the place of the petitioner which is authorized to run the haat market by virtue of the licence grant by the respondent No. 2.

3.

According to petitioner, he is holding a licence of haat bazaar in Meel Panchapeda, Khatima, since 2000, issued by Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar. In the year 2010-2011 the petitioner again applied for renewal of the aforesaid license and the Zila Panchayat Udham Singh Nagar renewed the licence of the petitioner for the year 2010-2011. The petitioner has alleged that one Sri Nafees Ahmad shopkeeper and other people are installing their shops in the Kabrasthan land. To prevent the illegal installation of shop over Kabrasthan land, the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar has also written a letter to the S.O., P.S. Khatima, for police help, but no action so far has been taken by the Station House Officer, Khatima. If the order is not being complied with by the Station Officer, Khatima, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the Collector, as well as S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar for redressal of his grievance.

4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner may be given liberty to file representation before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance and direction be issued for expeditious disposal of his representation. He also prayed that the writ petition be disposed of today. Prayer is innocuous.

5.

If the representation is moved by the petitioner before the authority concerned within a period of one week, thereafter the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order on his representation within a period of four weeks.

6.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.