Sarvam Seva Sansthanam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : - A writ/ order/ direction in the nature of a writ: -

“(A) Of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned notices dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure no. 10) and 17.02.2025 (Annexure no. 11) issued by the Joint Secretary/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Regional Office, Yamkeshwar, District Development Authority, Pauri, against the Petitioner Trust.

(B) Of Mandam us thereby directing Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner Trust.

(C) Pass any other order, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

Heard Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, contended that the petitioner, a registered trust, is engaged in providing social and welfare services towards the destitute cows and the calves. The petitioner moved an application in the year, 2016 for allotment of land bearing khasra no.119, area 1.808 measuring 60 x 25 sq. mtr. for fodder and medical facilities to such cows on the said land. The District Magistrate allotted the land for the said purpose vide letter dated 11.08.2016. The petitioner is continuously running Gaushala on the said land. The appropriate basic structures for protection of the cows are necessary. Half of the construction of the basic structure is completed and remaining construction is still pending. As per notice dated 15.02.2025 of the Office of Revenue Sub Inspector, the unauthorized construction of Gaushala has been raised on the said land without any prior permission. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to appear and clarify the position. On 17.02.2025, the impugned notice was issued and by the said notice, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the said construction within three days otherwise coercive action would be taken against the petitioner.

Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, has submitted that the petitioner is willing to clarify the facts before the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Yam keshwar. Therefore, Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition with a direction to the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Yamkeshwar to decide the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and for the said purpose, the petitioner shall move its representation along with relevant documents before the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate, Yamkeshwar within seven days from today.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent no.3, has requested two weeks’ time to decide the representation of the petitioner.

On the request of Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate and with the consent of Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel, the present writ petition (WPMS No.849 of 2025) is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner moves its representation along with certified copy of this order within seven days from today, the respondent no.3 shall decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible but not later than two weeks thereafter.

Till decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (annexure no.11 to the writ petition) are kept in abeyance.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.