WPMS/61/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 252 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/61/2026 on 9 January, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

SL.          Office Notes,
No.   Date      reports,
               orders or              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
             proceedings
             or directions
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             WPMS No. 54 of 2026
                             With
                             WPMS No. 61 of 2026
                             With
                             WPMS No. 120 of 2026
                             Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitoner through V.C.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Since, identical issue is raised in all these petitions, therefore, these petitions are being clubbed together.

4. Yesterday, two matters i.e. WPMS No. 28 of 2026 and WPMS No. 30 of 2026 were heard at length having similar cause of action and by giving reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escort Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and others, (2004) 4 SCC 281 a counter was called from the State within six weeks disclosing the reason why such policy a decision has been taken by the Government, which is reflected in the order dated 13.01.2006.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in all these petitions similar issue is involved and requests that the petitions be clubbed with the abovementioned petitions since in those petitions the State was directed to file counter affidavit.

6. In such view of the mater, list the present petitions along with WPMS No. 28 of 2026 and WPMS No. 30 of 2026 which has already been kept part heard.

7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Coordinate Bench already disposed of the identical matters with the direction to the Authority to take decision. I have gone through with the judgment but what this Court has observed that to somehow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court either may be ignored or bye pass while framing policy in the year 2006 and this aspect requires deep scrutiny.

8. Let the State may file counter affidavit.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.01.2026 Parul