Rupesh Biswas And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 4

and Mr. Navin Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Urgency Application is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, Urgency Application No.1592 of 2020 is allowed.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the

constructed shops of the petitioners, which are situated far away from the notified area of 900 meters i.e. Shivnagar to Transit Camp Police Station,

without following the due procedure of law.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2

to decide the representation of the petitioners.

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 5 have no objection on the submission of the jlearned counsel for the

petitioners.

This is an innocuous prayer. Therefore, the prayer is allowed.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners will submit their representation before the respondent No.2 within a week from today.

This writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt

of the petitioner’s representation with a reasoned order and according to law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.