SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 97043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MANOJ SAINI – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR NIGAM ROORKEE – Respondent
WPMS 3540 / 2025



##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11536

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

S NL o.

.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPMS 3540/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the

petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, for the

respondent.

(2) According to petitioner, due to

mistake, he deposited rupees twenty lakhs

with Nagar Nigam, Roorkee through online

RTGS from his own account, although he was

liable to deposit only rupees two lakhs. In this

writ petition, petitioner has sought the

following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in

the nature of Mandamus directing the

Respondent to forthwith refund the sum of Rs.

20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only),

which was erroneously deposited with the

Respondent by the petitioner.

II. Issue any other writ order or

direction in the nature of Mandamus directing

the Respondent to pay Interest on the said

amount at such rate as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper, from the date of deposit

till the date of actual refund.”

(3) Learned Counsel appearing for

Nagar Nigam, Roorkee, however, submits that

as per the stand taken by the petitioner, he

entered into negotiations with one Mr. Sanjeev

Kumar, who was granted lease of a shop

belonging to Nagar Nigam, for transfer of the

said lease. He submits that as per rules, Nagar

Nigam has to be taken into confidence before

transfer of any lease by a lease holder,

however Nagar Nigam was not informed about

any such negotiation. He submits that it is yet

to be ascertained as to whether the amount,

which petitioner claims to have deposited, was

actually deposited by him and the purpose for

which the said amount was deposited is also

##PAGE2##

2025:UHC:11536

yet to be ascertained. He submits that there

are various other issues, which will be required

to be gone into before taking the call. He

submits that a Committee has been

constituted by the Municipal Commissioner

vide order dated 27.10.2025 and the said

committee is to submit its report within four

months and only then final decision can be

taken.

(4) Writ petition is, accordingly,

disposed of with a direction to Municipal

Commissioner to take decision, based on the

report to be submitted by the Committee

constituted vide order dated 27.10.2025, as

per law, within four weeks from the date of

receipt of the report.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

23.12.2025

Pr

PRABODH KUMARD2p5De.3oiN a5rg ,sti :4cet tcan:a2N=l2lC0Iu0yN Pom Rs,d3 5io Abega .1B0n 2H Or8e26IdGa34 Hb D1y CK0C1P U:O9,R M5s6UAtAE=1Bf8RT 5OU9D T+D1 0FH CAa 5 K9R'3T6U5 0MKEHA 17AR4NB3 K9aDH4f,8A0NE2FD1Dc, 5o08u6=H2AIfGCe aC1OA4UBR56T81 aOf03F52UeDTFb6A1R9C8AdK54H86AC2N5D073F, C9157BE

##PAGE3##

2025:UHC:11536

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top