WPMS/2249/2021 of NIRMAL SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- WPMS/2249/2021 of NIRMAL SINGH (PETITIONER)
- STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (3)
- constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
- constitution of india (1950)
- indian penal code (1860)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 27[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2249 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Nirmal Singh.
……….Petitioner
(By Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others.
…..Respondents
(By Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand)
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, pursuant to the
work orders issued to him from time to time, he has undertaken civil construction work in Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
Grievance of the petitioner is that no
payment has been made to him for the construction done by him, pursuant to the work orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that when petitioner approached the concerned authorities, then he was assured that payment would be made to him as soon as necessary funds are received from the State Government.
4. This fact has been disputed by learned Brief Holder, who submits that two letters, which have been enclosed in the writ petition, have been issued by one Mr. Tej Pal Singh Panwar, after his retirement from the post of Forest Range Officer. Thus, according to him, there is no evidence that petitioner has actually undertaken civil construction work and further that any amount is due for such work.
5. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to make representation to Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve, who shall take decision thereupon at the earliest.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated period, Director shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within period of six months from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.
Arpan
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)