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