Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Ajay Kishor Bahuguna – Appellant
Versus
Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand Nainital – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Upadhyay, J.
The Court at the initial stage of hearing had passed an order whereby notices were issued to Respondent no.1, however, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interim relief, when the Court declined to grant the interim relief then the counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be decided finally. Thus, the writ petition is being heard and decided at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order no. 20874/UHC-service section-1, dated 01.12.2025, and Office memorandum no. 277/UHC-Service Section-1, dated 7th January, 2026, and a Letter dated 07 January, 2025 issued by District Magistrate, Garhwal digitally signed on 07.01.2026 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition).”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 439 (S/B) of 2025, which was decided on 14.10.2025. Para 10 to 13 of the order dated 14.10.2025 reads as under:
“10. The instant Writ Petition, despite the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, setting aside the order of removal, and directing
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
Interlocutory orders can be appealable if they materially affect rights; review jurisdiction is limited to errors visible on the record.
The court upheld the imposition of costs for abuse of process due to the petitioner's misrepresentation of facts and failure to challenge relevant prior orders.
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
