Uttarakhand High Court
Vinod Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 881 of 2025 (M/S)
Vinod Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present :
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the order
dated 30.06.2014, passed in Case No.145 of 2009-2010, State Vs.
Smt. Vinod Singh and Others ("the case"), by the court of
Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar. By it, a property was
vested in the State. In the case, the petitioner was not represented
when the matter was decided. The petitioner filed Restoration
Application No.69 of 2015-2016 in the case, which was dismissed
in non-prosecution on 01.02.2016. Again the petitioner filed an
application on 01.03.2016 for setting aside the order dated
01.02.2016, passed in the restoration application. That application
was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.09.2017, which was
confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. Garhwal Division,
Camp Dehradun, in Appeal No.62 of 2016-2017, Smt. Vinod Singh
Vs. State ("the appeal"), on 23.01.2023, and it was further
confirmed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.57 of 2022-23,
Smt. Vinod Singh Vs. State ("the revision").
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.02.2016, the
power of attorney of the petitioner was unwell, therefore, he could
not appear on the date of hearing. The restoration application was
filed within time, but that aspect of the matter has not been
considered while deciding the Restoration Application on
11.09.2017 and further, in the orders in Appeal and in Revision,
which are impugned, this aspect has not been considered.
4. The factual narration, as given by learned counsel for the
petitioner, has not been denied by learned State Counsel.
5. In the instant case, the restoration application was
dismissed in non-prosecution on 01.02.2016. When the petitioner
filed an application for setting aside this order dated 01.02.2016, it
was decided by the impugned order dated 11.09.2017, by the
Collector, Haridwar, in Restoration Application No.69 of 2015-2016.
The certified copy of the order dated 11.09.2017 is Annexure No.3
to the writ petition.
6. The restoration application was dismissed while observing
that the order dated 30.06.2017, passed in the case, is on merits.
In fact, it was not for consideration then. The only consideration,
which deserved the attention of the court at that point of time was
as to whether the petitioner has good or sufficient cause for his
non-appearance on 01.02.2016, when the restoration application
was first taken up for hearing, but it was not done. In the appeal
also, it was observed that in the case, the petitioner was offered
sufficient opportunity of hearing. Similarly, in the Revision also, it
was observed that the order dated 23.01.2023, passed in the
Appeal, is within jurisdiction. The issue with regard to the non-
appearance of the petitioner on 01.02.2016, when the restoration
application was taken up for hearing, has not been considered in
the impugned orders dated 11.09.2017, passed by the Collector,
Haridwar, and also in the Appeal and the Revision, this aspect has
not been considered. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders dated 11.09.2017, 23.01.2023 and 19.02.2025,
deserve to be set aside. The matter needs to be remanded back to
the court of Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar, to decide the
Restoration Application dated 01.02.2016, afresh. Accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed.
7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated
11.09.2017, 23.01.2023 and 19.02.2025, are set aside.
8. Let the matter be remanded back to the court of
Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar, to decide the Restoration
Application (Restoration Application No.69/2015-16) dated
01.03.2016, afresh, in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.04.2025
Ravi Bisht
