Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 24 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.209 of 2026
Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd.
--Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
--Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
3. Petitioner is a Hydro Power Company working within State of Uttarakhand in a Project named as Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. in river Alaknanda at Srinagar.
4. State Government by passing an Act known as Uttarakhand Water Tax on Electricity Generation Act, 2012, whereby, the water tax was imposed upon the Hydro Power Projects working within State of Uttarakhand.
5. Said Act was challenged by the different Hydro Power Companies including petitioner before this Court by filing various writ petitions. The petitions, which have been filed by the petitioner, are numbered as WPMS No.631 of 2017, WPMS No.1500 of 2016, WPMS No.2396 of 2019, WPMS No.3603 of 2019 and WPMS No.279 of 2020. These writ petitions were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2021.
6. Petitioner along with other Hydro Power Companies challenged the order of dismissal dated 12.02.2021 by filing Special Appeal before this Court. Special Appeals which were filed by petitioner were numbered as SPA No.136 of 2021, SPA No.137 of 2021, SPA No.140 of 2021, SPA No.141 of 2021 and SPA No.143 of 2021. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while deciding these Special Appeals, split in their opinion with regard to vires of the aforesaid Act, 2012. One of the Hon'ble Member of Bench upheld the Act while the other struck down the Act, which resulted into placing aforesaid Special Appeals before the third Bench vide order dated 25.10.2023.
7. It is contended by learned senior counsel for petitioner that in the aforesaid matter, argument has been concluded and the judgment has been reserved on 17.06.2025.
8. Petitioner is before this Court for the reason that the impugned recovery citation has been issued by the respondent No.5- Tehsildar, Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, against petitioner-Company for an amount of Rs.131.37 Cr.
9. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that since the order issued is still sub judice, therefore, respondent-State cannot direct issuance of recovery certificate against petitioner.
210. Per contra, learned State Counsel, on instruction, submits that though recovery citation has been issued, but pursuant to recovery citation, no coercive measure has been taken against the petitioner.
11. On the submission made by learned State Counsel, the matter is adjourned.
12. Put up on 16.03.2026.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 PN 3