Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/137/2022 on 3 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
03.05.2023 SPA No. 134 of 2022
SPA No. 137 of 2022
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present Special Appeals are directed against
the common order passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 813 & 814 of 2022. The
appellants preferred the said Writ Petitions, which
have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by
the common order dated 21.04.2022, wherein
challenge was made to the seizure order dated
01.07.2018, rendered in Case Nos.08/07
Laldhang/2018-19, as well as the order dated
02.07.2018.
4. The reasons for dismissal of the aforesaid Writ
Petitions recorded by the learned Single Judge were
that the appellants/ writ petitioners had earlier
preferred Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 1248 & 1246 of
2019, wherein a similar relief had been sought. The
said Writ Petitions had been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge by order dated 13.05.2019. Against the
said order, the appellants filed Special Appeal Nos.
554 & 555 of 2019, which were disposed of on
10.06.2019, with a direction to the respondent-
authorities to decide the representation of the
appellants/ writ petitioners by a reasoned order within
one month.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the
appellants could not have preferred a fresh Writ
Petition to seek the same relief. Consequently, the
Writ Petitions were dismissed, on the account of delay
and laches, and also on the ground that the appellants
had preferred successive Writ Petitions for the same
relief and cause of action.
6. We have heard learned counsels.
7. Since no counter affidavit had been called for in
the Writ Petitions, the respondents were required to
file their counter affidavit in the present Special
Appeals, which have been filed.
8. A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that,
after the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petitions &
Special Appeals, taken note of hereinabove, orders of
confiscation were also passed, which was a fresh and
later development. Moreover, we are of the view that,
since more than three years had elapsed from the
earlier round of litigation, the appellants were entitled
to again approach the Court, particularly, when the
order passed by the Division Bench, requiring the
respondents to decide their representation, had not
been complied with.
9. We are not commenting on the merits of the
appellants/ writ petitioners' claim in the Writ Petition,
since the same has not been inquired into by the
learned Single Judge.
10. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of
the appellants, in the Writ Petitions, should be
considered on its own merits, and the writ petitioners
could not have been non-suited on the ground of
delay and laches.
11. We, accordingly, set-aside the impugned
judgment, and remand the Writ Petitions back to the
learned Single Judge for deciding the same on merits.
12. The Writ Petitions be listed as per the Roster on
18.05.2023.
13. The Special Appeals stand disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
14. Consequently, pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
03.05.2023 03.05.2023
Rahul
