WPMS/268/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 872 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/268/2026 on 10 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                                  2026:UHC:732
             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.268 of 2026
                                      Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Sngdha Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner-Trust.

2. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6.

3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner-Trust prays for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Work Order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure No.7) and subsequent Bond/Contract dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure No.7) issued by the Respondent No.2 for the construction of a purported "Mini Stadium" on the land belonging to the Petitioner Trust, as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, violative of due process and to bestow consideration upon alternate parcel of land in Panagarh, Askot.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the NOCs dated 2020 (Annexure No.6) and 02.12.2025 (Annexure No.9) purportedly issued by the Principal as relied upon by the Respondents as they are void, non est, unenforceable and obtained without authority, coercively and without jurisdiction, and in any event incapable of authorizing alienation, transfer or encumbrance of Trust property.

iii. Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith cease and desist from undertaking any construction, excavation, levelling, or related activity on the parcel of land owned by the Petitioner Trust and used by Respondent No.5 as school playground.

2026:UHC:732

4. From perusal of the reliefs itself along with the averment made in the writ petition, it transpires that instead of going for a prohibitory injunction in a Civil Court, petitioner wants to get the controversy decided in the present writ petition.

5. Since the controversy involves several disputed question of facts, therefore, this Court cannot go into the disputed question of facts in writ jurisdiction, thus, it declines to interfere in the matter. However, petitioner-Trust is free to avail the Civil Law remedy available to it under the Private Law.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.02.2026 PN