WPMS/1612/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2093 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPMS No. 1612 of 2022
                                 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Shri Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that he wants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition with better particulars. However, in spite of giving directions, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not file the memo of withdrawal. Hence, this Court examine the record and pass this order.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to take delivery of the rice quantity of 6156.4 quintal obtained from hulling of paddy according to directions of the respondents." Petitioner has mentioned in paragraph no.

1 of the writ petition filed by it that this is the first writ petition. However, it has annexed a copy of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench on 10.12.2021 whereby WPMS No. 483 of 2021 along with WPMS No. 484 & 9 of 2021 filed by it were disposed of.

In those writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Kumoan Region, Haldwani whereby their Kachha Aadhti Code for the year 2020-21 have been cancelled and petitioners have been blacklisted for registration as Kachha Aadhti for a period of four years. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by the Coordinate Bench, however, it is observed that petitioner has defaulted in payment of price of paddy to the paddy growers.

In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner appears to be premature as he is seeking a direction to the respondent no. 3 to take delivery of rice quantity of 6156.4 quintal from hulling of paddy, according to the direction of the respondents, however, no order has been passed by the respondents.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition and petition should be dismissed with costs. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund, Nainital within 7 days failing, which the costs shall be recovered from the petitioner, as arrears of land revenue.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for necessary action, if required.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 12.07.2022 SKS