High CourtsSingle Bench

Udaiveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 4 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 UK CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3341 Of 2023 (M/S)
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

12 paragraphs · 355 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to take suitable and prompt against the respondent nos.7 and 8 regarding severe illegalities and irregularities committed by them in carrying fair price shop in Village Sakoti, Block Narson, District Haridwar.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the objection dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure No.9) moved by petitioner against the joint inquiry report dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure No.8).

(iii) Issue appropriate order or direction directing the parties to maintain status quo during pendency of present petition.

(iv) To issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2.

Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, submitted that a joint enquiry report dated 26.09.2023 was submitted by the Regional Supply Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar and the Assistant Development Officer, Vikas Khand, Narson on the complaint of the petitioner. An objection to the said joint enquiry report has been filed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (Annexure No.9 to the Writ Petition). The said objection is still pending.

4.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee to decide the said objection (Annexure No.9).

5.

The said submissions have not been opposed by learned counsel for the State. He has sought six weeks’ time to decide the objection (Annexure No.9).

6.

With the consent of both the parties, present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar to decide the objection (Annexure No.9 to the Writ Petition), filed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.

7.

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