Uttarakhand High Court
Ankit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2025:UHC:8667-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.349 of 2021
Ankit Kumar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.348 of 2021
Nutan Kumar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.350 of 2021
Raj Kishor ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.351 of 2021
Arvind Kumar Tomar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.352 of 2021
Sudhir Kumar Rathore ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.353 of 2021
Rajesh Kumar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
2
2025:UHC:8667-DB
Special Appeal No.354 of 2021
Arjun Singh Barnala ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.355 of 2021
Vishal Kumar Chauhan ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.356 of 2021
Praveen Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.357 of 2021
Virendra Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.358 of 2021
Pramod Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.359 of 2021
Ankit Sharma ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.360 of 2021
3
2025:UHC:8667-DB
Sachin Kumar Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.361 of 2021
Rakesh Singh Negi ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. J. C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeals are preferred against the judgment
dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS
No.3434 of 2018, Ankit Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others,
along with bunch of cases ("the writ petitions"), by which the writ
petitions of the appellants have been dismissed by a common
judgment. The challenge is also made to judgment and final order
dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby
review applications filed by the appellants were dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.
3. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants for quashing
an inquiry report dated 13.04.2018 and also seeking mandamus
commanding the respondents in the writ petitions, to issue
2025:UHC:8667-DB
appointment letters to the petitioners on the Post of Forest Guard in
Rajaji National Park. The writ petitions were dismissed on
09.09.2020 along with bunch of other writ petitions of similar
nature. Thereafter, the writ petitioners did file the review
applications in the writ petitions, which were dismissed on
29.10.2020. Both these judgments are impugned.
4. It is admitted fact that the writ petitions were decided
along with WPPS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS No.3349 of 2018. In
both those writ petitions, review applications were filed and both
review applications were dismissed by the common order dated
29.10.2020. The orders passed in WPPS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS
No.3349 of 2018 as well as the order passed on review in those writ
petitions were challenged in the SPA No.359 of 2020 (the First
Special Appeal). The First Special Appeal was decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.09.2021. In paragraph nos.9,
10 & 11, the Coordinate Bench observed as follows:-
"9. A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that there are
different grounds for reviewing the order, namely, (a) if there is a
discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, and which was not within the knowledge
of the applicant; (b) if such important matter or evidence could not
be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was
passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.
10. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is not justified in observing
that "since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the
Review Petition deserves to be dismissed". Since a new document,
namely the final report dated 23.07.2019, was brought on record,
which was not available with the appellant despite due diligence, the
learned Single Judge was required to consider the said document,
and if necessary, to review the order dated 09.09.2020. However,
this exercise has not been carried out by the learned Single Judge.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court set-asides the order
dated 29.10.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review
Application (MCC No.537 of 2020), and remands the case back to
the learned Single Judge with a direction to consider the final report
dated 23.07.2019, and to pass the necessary order in accordance
with law."
2025:UHC:8667-DB
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
the State has concealed the material facts in the writ petitions; they
had concealed the report dated 23.07.2019 of Chief Conservator of
Forest , which had great bearing in the merit of the writ petitions. It
is also submitted that, in fact, the review applications that were filed
by the appellants were dismissed, observing that there is no error
apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that, in fact, the
appellants have taken various other grounds in their review
applications, which were never addressed in the impugned judgment
dated 29.10.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the writ
petitions were decided along with WPSS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS
No.3349 of 2018 by the common judgment dated 09.09.2021. He
submits that in the writ petitions different review applications were
filed and they all were dismissed on 29.10.2020. He submits that
since in the First Special Appeal, the matter has already been
remanded back to the learned Single Judge, the instant matter also
deserves to be remanded back, as per order dated 09.09.2021
passed in the First Special Appeal.
7. The First Special Appeal was against the common
judgment passed in the petitions. Having considered the grounds
taken in the First Special Appeal, the Coordinate Bench of this Court
has remanded back two connected writ petitions for hearing to the
learned Single Judge. This Court, at this stage, may not take a
different view, therefore, this Court set asides the impugned common
order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in review
applications and remands the case back to the learned Single Judge
2025:UHC:8667-DB
with a direction to consider the Final Report dated 23.07.2019 and
to pass the necessary order, in accordance with law.
8. The Special Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.09.2025 23.09.2025
BS
BALWANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe
2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE
5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.09.25 18:56:23 +05'30'
