WPSB/439/2025
2026 Latest Caselaw 829 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/439/2025 on 9 February, 2026

                   Office Notes,
                      reports,
                     orders or
                   proceedings
SL.
        Date       or directions                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                        and
                    Registrar's
                    order with
                    Signatures
      09.02.2026                   WPSB No. 439 of 2025
                                   Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner- review applicant.

2. Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Mr. Abdul Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.03 of 2026)

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner.

5. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application duly supported with an affidavit, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 11 days is condoned.

Review Application (MCC No.02 of 2025)

6. Heard Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel in support of the review application and learned counsel for the respondent- University.

7. After making submissions at some length, Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking relief in respect of the cost imposed upon the petitioner. He has invited our attention towards the recitals in the judgment under review wherein it is stated that the petitioner has disclosed complete facts, including the fact relating to the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.09.2024 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8788-8789 of 2023. He submits that in such circumstances, there would be no justification for imposing exemplary cost of Rupees Five Lakhs upon the applicant- petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the University has no objection in case the cost is made easy.

9. Having regard to the submissions made, review application is allowed only to the extent cost has been imposed and accordingly, cost is made easy.

10. Review application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 09.02.2026 09.02.2026 NISHANT