High CourtsSingle Bench

Van Panchayat Kotla Through Its Sarpanch vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 February 2023 · Citation: (2023) 02 UK CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 314 Of 2023

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 287 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The petitioner is the Van Panchayat, situated at Village Kotla, Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital. By following the procedure, prescribed in Rule 18 of the Uttaranchal Forest Panchayat Rules, 2005, a resolution was passed by the petitioner for disposal of rotten grass pine tree etc. The said resolution was received in the office of the respondent no.2, but, till date no decision has been taken on the resolution/ representation, preferred by the petitioner.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief:-

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision on the representation and resolution of the petitioner which was duly received in the office of respondent no.2 on 06.07.2020 in accordance with law within the stipulated time as this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.

3.

Learned counsel for the State requested four weeks’ time to decide the said resolution/representation.

4.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Champawat, District Champawat, the respondent no.2, to consider and decide the said resolution/representation, submitted by the petitioner and received by the office of the respondent no.2 on 06.07.2020, by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with the relevant rules.

5.

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