9Th March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2180 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

9Th March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 March, 2026

                                                        2026:UHC:1913-DB


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                                 AND
              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY



               WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 145 OF 2026


                             19TH MARCH, 2026


Ram Prakash Sundriyal                            ......        Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others                 ......         Respondents


Counsel for the petitioner       :       Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned
                                         counsel

Counsel for the respondents      :       Mr.   Gajendra  Triptahi,  learned
                                         Standing Counsel with Mr. Sachin
                                         Mohan Singh Mehta, learned Brief
                                         Holder for the State / respondent
                                         Nos. 1 and 4

                                 :       Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for
                                         respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through
                                         video conferencing



The Court made the following:


JUDGMENT:

(per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1) The present writ petition has been filed seeking

a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent

authorities to transfer respondent No. 5 Manoj Rawat,

Executive Engineer, Badkot from the present place of

2026:UHC:1913-DB posting to another place on basis of the application filed

by the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No. 5

harbours animosity against the petitioner and, therefore,

he should not remain posted at a place where the

petitioner resides. It is also alleged that respondent No. 5

had his education at his present place of posting and for

this reason also, he should be transferred to some other

place.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course

of arguments admitted that the petitioner has earlier

worked as Pradhan of the village.

3) On the face of it, the writ petition is not

maintainable for the relief claimed, as the respondents do

not owe any enforceable duty to the petitioner nor any of

the right of the petitioner has been infringed. The writ

petition is apparently mala fide as the petitioner alleges

enmity with respondent No. 5 and, therefore, wants to

create obstacle in the posting of respondent No. 5 at his

village.

4) The petition being wholly frivolous is dismissed

with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the

petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Authority

within fifteen days from today failing which the amount

2026:UHC:1913-DB would be recovered from the petitioner in accordance with

law.

5) Pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

_______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 19TH MARCH, 2026 Negi

HIMANS

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757,

HU NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A 722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A 1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.03.19 17:07:44 +05'30'