Uttarakhand High Court
9Th September vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2018
19TH SEPTEMBER, 2023
Manoj Kumar .....Appellant.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel with Mr. Rajeev
Singh Bisht, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
We have heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the appellant- writ petitioner, and Mr. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel at length.
2. For disposing of the present appeal, it is not
considered necessary to have the presence of respondent
no.6, considering the order that we propose to pass.
3. The case of the appellant- writ petitioner in the writ
petition is that his documents and name have been misused
by respondent no.6 to obtain a liquor license. The payments
made for obtaining the liquor license were routed through the
bank account attributed to respondent no.6. The appellant
claims that even the notices issued to the appellant were not
received by him earlier, and were received by respondent
no.6. Reference has also been made to the affidavit statedly
filed by the appellant, wherein the mobile number provided is
that of respondent no.6, and not of the appellant. The
appellant alleges that respondent no.6 has forged and
fabricated his signatures on various documents. There is yet
another instance of another person cited, who had made a
similar complaint regarding the modus operandi adopted by
respondent no.6. The appellant has already made a complaint
in this regard by invoking Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and those proceedings are pending
before the concerned Magistrate.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge
has refused to grant the stay of recovery from the appellant.
The recovery is to the tune of Rs.1,90,37,300/-. The writ
petition is pending and now listed on 13.10.2023.
5. In our view, the statements of the appellant- writ
petitioner need to be examined before recovery of such an
staggering amount from him, as such recovery without
examining the appellant's defence- which is weighty, may
lead to financial death of the appellant.
6. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal with the
following directions:-
1. Subject to the appellant- writ petitioner
furnishing to this Court, and also to the respondent-
authorities within the next three days, an affidavit
disclosing all his properties and assets- moveable
and immovable, along with his current bank
statement, and also subject to the condition that the
appellant shall not dispose of his moveable and
immovable properties and assets, and shall not
deplete any amount from his bank account, recovery
against the appellant- writ petitioner shall remain
stayed.
7. This order shall continue to operate till the next
date of hearing fixed before the learned Single Judge, which
is 13.10.2023.
8. The learned Single Judge may examine the matter,
and take a decision on whether, or not to continue to stay.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 19th September, 2023
NISHANT
