Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/189/2021 on 5 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 189 of 2021
05th JULY, 2021
Between:
Sri Sathya Sai Trust U.P.-U.K.
...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, the learned
counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
With the consent of both the learned counsel, this
Special Appeal is being decided at this stage itself.
2. The appellant has challenged the legality of the
order dated 30.06.2021, passed by the learned Single
Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1212 of 2021. The learned
counsel for the appellant submits that considering the fact
that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing,
while passing the impugned order dated 15.10.2015, the
learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to decide
the appellant's representation dated 22.06.2021. However,
the learned Single Judge has not directed the respondents to
give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant prior to
deciding the said representation. Moreover, while the
representation has to be decided within a period of two
months, the learned Single Judge has not injuncted the
respondents from demolishing the structures allegedly raised
by the appellant. Therefore, through an innocuous order,
the learned Single Judge has exposed the appellant to
certain possible dangers. Hence, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside by this Court.
3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State, on the other hand, submits that a
representation cannot be decided without giving an
opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the apprehension of the
appellant is highly misplaced.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and
perused the impugned order.
2
5. Obviously, once a representation is made, the
respondents need to decide the same only after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, the
apprehension of the appellant that it would not be heard is
misguided.
6. However, the apprehension of the appellant, that
during the pendency of the representation, the structures
allegedly raised may be demolished, is a bonafide
apprehension. For, the learned Single Judge has not
prohibited the respondents from taking any action against
the appellant during the pendency of the representation.
7. Therefore, this Court modifies the order dated
30.06.2021 to the limited extent that the respondents are
directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant,
and the respondents shall neither take any adverse action,
nor demolish the structures allegedly raised by the
appellant, during the pendency of the representation.
Furthermore, the respondents are directed to pass a
reasoned order after hearing the appellant.
3
8. With these modifications, this Special Appeal is,
hereby, disposed of.
9. No order as to costs.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 05th JULY, 2021
Rahul
