Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1661/2024 on 16 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8253
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS 1629/2024
WPMS 1661/2024
WPMS 1636/2024
WPMS 1665/2024
WPMS 1667/2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Ajay Joshi and Mr. Pankaj
Semwal, Counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel,
for the State.
(2) Since substitution application
(IA/3/2025) and delay condonation
application (IA/4/2025), filed in
WPMS/1665/2024, are not being opposed,
therefore, for the reasons indicated therein,
the same are allowed. Let amended memo
of parties be filed within 24 hours.
(3) Since common questions of fact
and law are involved in these writ petitions,
these are being heard and decided together
by this common judgment. However, for
brevity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1629
of 2024 alone are being considered and
discussed here.
(4) According to petitioner, his shop
situate at Sonprayag (District Rudraprayag)
was washed away during flash floods in
2013, therefore he was entitled to another
shop, as per the rehabilitation policy. By
means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
30.05.2024 (Annexure No. 8) passed by
respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of petitioner
for allotment of shop at Sonprayag has been
rejected;
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the
2025:UHC:8253
nature of certiorari quashing the public notice dated
08.06.2024 (Annexure No. 9) whereby the
application has been invited for allotment of 6
shops at Sonprayag i.e. shops for which petitioner
is entitled for allotment and has raised a claim;
iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
allot the shops at Sonparayag to the petitioners for
which they are entitled being the disaster affected
persons;"
(5) Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that petitioner and his two brothers,
all of them were running a hotel in a
building, which was damaged during the
flash flood, which hit Sonprayag in 2013. He
submits that in lieu of the building, which
was damaged, a shop has been allotted to
petitioner and his two brothers, vide order
dated 4.5.2018. He also submits that all the
three brothers have accepted the shop
without raising any demur.
(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
relies upon a list of persons, who were
affected by the flood during 2013, prepared
by Traders Association (Vyapar Sangh), for
submitting that all the three brothers had
independent business, therefore they are
entitled to separate shops.
(7) Perusal of the order dated
30.5.2024, passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Ukhimath, impugned in this writ
petition, indicates that the list prepared by
Traders Association was not considered at all
and the order of allotment was made on
assumption that all the three brothers were
jointly running a business.
(8) Learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that other similarly situate persons,
who were running separate businesses and
were allotted one shop, were subsequently
given separate shops when they made
2025:UHC:8253
representation to the competent authority.
Therefore, he submits that petitioners be
permitted to make fresh representation and
the competent authority be asked to take
decision thereupon in the light of the list of
flood affected persons, prepared by the
Traders Association.
(9) Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, impugned order
dated 30.5.2024, passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate, which fails to take note of the list
of flood affected persons prepared by
Traders Association, is set aside. Writ
petitions are disposed of granting liberty to
petitioners to make representation to the
District Magistrate, enclosing therewith
documentary evidence in support of their
contention that they were running separate
businesses. If petitioners make such
representations within ten days from today,
District Magistrate concerned shall look into
the matter and take decision, as per law,
within four months thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
16.9.2025
Pr
PRABODH Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
KUMAR
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE5
3, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.09.17 18:42:45 +05'30'
2025:UHC:8253
