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

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 494043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SANJAY SINGH PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 2467 / 2025



Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS/ 2467/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by a recovery citation issued by Tehsildar Vikasnagar, District Dehradun for recovery of ₹8,15,000/-. He is challenging the said recovery citation on the ground that he was not heard before

ordering for recovery against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner was the highest bidder for award of a contract for Hat Bazaar, which was given by Gram Panchayat, however, the land, which was earmarked for holding Hat Bazaar, was not suitable for that purpose and it remained waterlogged for substantial period of time and no alternate site was

provided to petitioner, despite request.

5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner was the highest bidder and he submitted bid with eyes wide open and he was aware about the location of the site and the problem, if

any, the site was having.

6. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner has already made a which appears to have been marked to consideration, therefore, Additional

District Magistrate, Dehradun be directed to look into the matter.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun to consider petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2025 and pass appropriate order, as per law, within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For a period of three weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

21.08.2025 Aswal N SI I N T G I R H A A J SWALD2pcDen.oiN a5rgsti:4ettca: a2N=Il2T lC0Iu0 yNomR s,de5A iobag .J0cn 8SHr2e6I2 Id NG7431G b500HEy 3 CeB1N A: O51,I S4TsUW8tC=0 RBA8U1AFLeOT-0J9FS 73ABI ' UNR7fTG689HK98H A3RCA4SBNfWK60DHF71,4LN CD2,o5Eua3=D8H25I6GfF958 C0C2OaUD3RA0TC8 OFb4FUdT13A06CR95FKEH25Ae8aNA3D0,f 1726FB0,

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top