At Nainital vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3393 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

At Nainital vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 June, 2025

                                                         2025:UHC:5518-DB
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL

             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
                                  AND
                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA

       WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) NO. 117
                          OF 2025

                                30th JUNE, 2025

Rajesh Rastogi                           ......            Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand
And Others                               ......          Respondents

Presence:-
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)

In the instant PIL, the proceedings of the Nagar Palika/4th

respondent to change the land allotted for construction of

cowshed is being questioned before this Court in the garb of a

PIL.

2. The short facts are that, earlier an extent of land was

reserved for the construction of a cowshed. Thereafter, the

Palika realized that the land reserved for the construction of

cowshed was in the vicinity of a pond and as the monsoons

bring copious rains it results in the flooding of the land

reserved for the cowshed construction and hence they have

2025:UHC:5518-DB changed the land that has been reserved and this change of

land is now being questioned.

3. The petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate

as to how the land now reserved for construction of cowshed is

insufficient. The number of cows on the streets is also not

placed before this Court. That apart, the petitioner is also

unable to demonstrate as to how he is aggrieved by this act of

the Nagar Palika.

4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Palika is doing

away with the providing of Gaushala, but, he is aggrieved by

the extent of the land that has now been reserved. It is not the

case of the petitioner that the change of allocation, in any

manner, prejudices his right or rights of the public.

5. In that view, the petition, in our considered opinion, is

misconceived.

6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.

Dt: 30th June, 2025 Ujjwal