Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/174/2015 on 18 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7243-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPA/174/2015
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. Case called out.
2. None present for the parties.
3. This intra-court appeal has been
filed by the writ petitioner challenging
the judgment dated 12.01.2015
rendered by learned Single Judge in
WPMS No. 2821 of 2014. By the said
judgment, Authorities of All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh
were directed not to interfere in the
appellant's possession of a Pharmacy
Shop, without adopting due process of
law, i.e. proceedings under the Public
Premises Act.
4. Operative portions of the impugned
judgment are extracted below:-
"Respondents have stated that since
petitioner was indulging in selling the
substandard and substituted medicine and
surgical items instead of medicine and surgical
items prescribed by the Doctors, therefore,
impugned notices were issued to the petitioner
terminating his licence asking the petitioner to
close down the Chemist Shop and to hand over
physical vacant possession to the A.I.I.M.S. after
vacating the premises, in question.
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the parties that as per the agreement / licence
deed, if licensee fails to deliver the possession to
the licensor, after terminating the licence,
licensor shall have legal remedy to seek eviction
of the licencee as per the provision of Public
Premises Act.
Undisputedly, till day, no eviction order has
been passed by the Prescribed Authority under
the provisions of Public Premises Act. Mere
2025:UHC:7243-DB
issuance of impugned notices, terminating the
licence of the petitioner and asking petitioner to
hand over peaceful vacant possession to the
licensor, i.e. respondents herein, does not give
any right to the licensor to put seal on the shop
of the petitioner. Licensor, if so advised, may
initiate eviction proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with the provision of
Public Premises Act.
Therefore, present petition stands disposed
of with the direction that respondents shall be at
liberty to initiate eviction proceedings against the
petitioner under the provision of Public Premises
Act wherein petitioner shall be at liberty to take
all the possible defences including the question of
validity and legality of the notices issued.
Respondents shall not interfere in the
possession of the petitioner without adopting due
process of law, i.e. proceedings under the Public
Premises Act."
5. We have gone though the impugned
judgment. Learned Single Judge has
given valid reasons for restraining the
Authorities from interfering with the
possession of the appellant over the
shop, which was leased out to her. The
allegation against the appellant was that
she was selling medicines and surgical
items from her shop, which were not as
per the prescription given by doctors of
All India Medical Sciences, Rishikesh.
Thus, the appellant was given a notice
that her licence would be terminated for
selling substituted sub-standard
medicines and surgical items. Thus, we
do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment.
6. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.08.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH ASWAL
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB
0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.08.18 06:42:21 -07'00'
