Uttarakhand High Court
Himalaya Organics Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 24 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2025 (M/S)
Himalaya Organics Agro Pvt. Ltd. ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Prabha Naithani,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the
Union of India.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Mohit Maulekhi,
Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks
the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to
forthwith remove the four big statues which have been
fixed/installed just adjacent/attaching to the front
boundary wall of petitioner's property 194-A, Rajpur Road
Dehradun.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction, which is this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the
case.
(iii) Award of the cost of the petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns a property
bearing No.194-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, which is a residential
property and is in exclusive possession of the petitioner. Under the
Smart City Mission in the year 2017, Dehradun city was included
in the list of cities which were to be developed as Smart City and
the operations in this regard have already concluded on
31.03.2025. But, thereafter, four big statues adjacent to the
boundary walls of the petitioner's property have been installed by
the respondents. The petitioner at that stage has moved a writ
petition bearing WPMS No.1560 of 2025, Himalaya Organics Agro
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and others ("the first
petition"), which was decided by this Court on 04.06.2025,
directing the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner. But, without deciding the representation, the statues
were installed on 10.06.2025. The petitioner further moved
representation. When the statues were not removed, the petitioner
is now before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to
remove the four big statues.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the Smart City Project has already concluded on
31.03.2025; in the first petition, the Court had directed the
respondent no.4/Chief Executing Officer ("the CEO"), Smart City
Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner, but
without deciding the representation, the statues have been
installed. It is argued that it is wastage of public money; it has
destroyed the wall of the petitioner; there is no mention of
installation of statues under the Smart City Project. He also
submits that the CEO never gave any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner before deciding the representation.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that under the Smart
City Project, the statues have been installed; it is not installed in
the property of the petitioner rather it is on the public property;
pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2025, passed by this Court in
the first petition, the CEO repeatedly issued notices to the
petitioner, which he denied to accept; multiple methods were
adopted to serve on the petitioner, in fact, a telephonic call was also
made to him, but he never responded. Thereafter, by a detailed
speaking order dated 11.07.2025, his representation was rejected.
He has tendered for perusal of the Court the order passed on the
representation of the petitioner. Let it be taken on record.
6. The Court wanted to know from the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to what individual right of
the petitioner has been infringed? He submits that the boundary
wall of the petitioner has been destroyed. This contention has less
force.
7. Admittedly, the statues have been installed, not on the
property of the petitioner. It is definitely adjacent to the boundary
wall of the petitioner on the property owned by the State
Government. Therefore, it gives no cause to the petitioner to
dispute the placing of the statues. Therefore, there is no reason to
interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.07.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686d
f4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,
KANOJIA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450
A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY
KANOJIA
Date: 2025.07.25 16:58:06 +05'30'
