M/S Kothari Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1381 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S Kothari Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 29 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2025 (M/S)

M/S Kothari Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd.                      ..........Petitioner

                                    Vs.

Union of India and others                              ........ Respondents
Present :   Mr. Satendra Singh Lingwal, Advocate for the petitioner appeared
            through video conferencing.
            Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the
            Union of India/respondent nos.1 and 4.
            Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
            Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi,
            Advocate for respondent no.4 appeared through video conferencing.




                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order

dated 23.04.2025, passed in Appeal No.10 of 2024, Kothari Nursing

Home Pvt. Limited vs. Cantonment Board Dehradun and another,

under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 ("the Act"), by the

Lieutenant General, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central

Command, Appellate Authority; challenge is also made to the

demolition order and other orders, passed in this regard.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. On the last occasion, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted against the order passed in

appeal, a review application has already been filed by the petitioner

under Section 57 of the Act, which is pending consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has challenged the order passed in the appeal in the

review petition, but, on the one hand, no action is being taken on

the review application and, on the other hand, the Cantonment

Board has proceeded to demolish the property.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 gives a

statement that no proceeding for demolition has yet been taken

against the petitioner. He gives a statement that till the review

application is decided the status quo qua the property-in-question

shall be maintained.

6. The Court takes on record the statement given by the

learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 4 gives a

statement that the review petition may be decided within 4 months.

8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed in the

appeal as well as the sealing order, but the petitioner has also

challenged the order, passed in the appeal in the review petition,

which is still pending.

9. Since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of

review under Section 57 of the Act, there is no reason to entertain

the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed

at the stage of admission itself.

10. The petition is dismissed in limine. However, till the

review filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act is decided

status quo qua the property-in-question shall be maintained.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.07.2025 Sanjay

SANJAY

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d 1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001,

KANOJIA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A8 4B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.08.01 10:26:56 +05'30'