Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPMS/ 3330/ 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner is serving as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Development Block Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She has challenged inter departmental communication issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer on 17.11.2025. The said communication is addressed to Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who has been asked to lodge FIR regarding the irregularities committed in construction of public toilets.

4. Petitioner contends that since an FIR has already been lodged against petitioner on 06.11.2022, therefore, the direction to lodge another FIR, issued to Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), is uncalled for.

5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that writ petition is premature, as no injury has been caused to petitioner as yet. He further submits that subsequent FIR can be lodged if offences/incidents are different. He submits that no mandamus can be issued to the Authorities restraining them from lodging FIR.

6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. The impugned order does not name the petitioner and it simply states that FIR has not been lodged, even though instructions for lodging FIR were issued earlier and the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) was asked to ensure that FIR is lodged without any further delay. The background in which FIR is to be lodged is not clear from the letter. Whether petitioner’s role in the incident would also come under scrutiny in the FIR to be lodged or not, is not clear.

7. Even otherwise also, the Authorities cannot be restrained from lodging FIR by issuing a writ of mandamus. Thus, this Court declines to interfere in the matter at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner then expressed apprehension that lodging of FIR would result in denial promotion to petitioner.

10. The said apprehension is also misplaced, as sealed cover procedure has to be followed whenever there is some FIR or adverse material against a Government servant, who is due for promotion.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

08.12.2025 Aswal N S A I S I N T W G I R A H A L J Do29sFRDte5.8A uiN a 5r g CtJiU:4ae 2 tH S c lT: a N = I2 l3G D0I u0A yN GAm R s, H eC5 8iCo bag .Fb 1 OKce n 2S HHrUe6 W0 Id ARGd7486 NT A b511DL3E y 03 C eB6, NF : O954 I54 T 6 U8CE1 R2B58 1A F8 eaO -0 J A0 9FS30B IK ' UN 7fTG 6,3 89pH 198o 7 A3RDCs24StB,afWK 60lCH F71o4L 0dN Ce, D 2=0c , n25E6a33NDI8T2516 f,