High CourtsSingle Bench

Vikram Singh Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 UK CK 0387

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Miscellaneous Single No. 518 Of 2026
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

9 paragraphs · 362 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the premise that the respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad has imposed an arbitrary and illegal condition for registration of the contractor with respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad.

2.

The condition which has been imposed by respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad for registration of a contractor in respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad is that the person should have been registered from prior to 2023- 24.

3.

It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was registered with respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad in the years 2023- 24 and 2024-25 and had worked with respondent no.2- Nagar Palika Parishad which was successfully completed.

4.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition imposed is highly arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable as it has created a monopoly in favour of those persons who had already worked with respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad prior to the year 2023.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that so far as registration of the petitioner is concerned, it has been done by respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad and it has to be published under the Rules in the Government Gazette Notification by Government Press, Roorkee, and thereafter the same would be notified to the petitioner.

6.

Be that as it may, the classification which has been carved out by respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad appears to be ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Moreover the learned counsel for the respondent no.2- Nagar Palika Parishad submits that the Nagar Palika Parishad has already registered the petitioner with it and only name of the petitioner is to be notified in the Gazette Notification to be made by the Government Press, Roorkee.

7.

This Court is of the view that nothing is left to be decided in the writ petition now. However it is provided that the petitioner shall make a representation afresh to the respondent no.2 within a period of three days from today and it shall be decided by the respondents within a period of 15 days’ thereafter by a speaking and reasoned order.

8.

Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.