7 February vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1156 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

7 February vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                        2026:UHC:1004
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
       Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 341 of 2026
                       17 February, 2026
Dinesh Chandra Belwal
                                                        --Petitioner
                        Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others

                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.5.


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Vide order dated 13.02.2026, the respondent/State was directed to seek instructions in the matter. Though instructions have not been received, learned Advocates for respondent nos. 2 to 5 have appeared before this Court. They may file their vakalatnama in the Registry during the course of the day.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the premise that he is a Skill Development Growth Centre under the Hiltron Calc Centres and was doing work under the ITDA (Information Technology Development Agency) department. Suddenly, the petitioner was deprived of the work of the growth centre and respondent no.5 was assigned the said work by the ITDA. By the action on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 4, petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood; therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner was not an actual Skill Development Growth Centre. In the State of Uttarakhand,

2026:UHC:1004 there are only two Skill Development Growth Centres, one at Pithoragarh and one at Rishikesh, whereas the petitioner was granted a franchisee by respondent no.2. The franchisee of the petitioner has lapsed and, for that reason, he has not been provided with the work.

4. It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 that if the petitioner makes an application/representation to respondent no. 2-Director, the same shall be considered and the work may accordingly be given to the petitioner.

5. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, the writ petition is finally disposed of. It is provided that the petitioner shall make an application/representation for renewal of his franchise to respondent no. 2 within a period of one week from today and, if such an application is moved by the petitioner to respondent no. 2-Director, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and decided within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of said application. However, it is made clear that the application/representation of the petitioner shall be considered by respondent no. 2 sympathetically, keeping in view the livelihood of the petitioner.

6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.02.2026 AK