Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2020 DAILYLAW 605 (UTT)

ARUN KUMAR v. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/199/2020 · 2026-03-19

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

body2020

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB 199/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy AG, for the State. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, for Uttarakhand Technical University. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, for the UGC. (2) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(i) Issue writ rule or direction certiorarified mandamus and declaration to declare the impugned orders as contained to annexure numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in league with the appointment of the Private respondents no. 13 and 14 as enquiry members of the enquiry committee, reports and all notings which are made basis for the purpose of impugned orders are nonest in the eyes of law and without jurisdiction, void ab initio malicious, arbitrary, unreasonable and also ultravires in law and to quash the same along with its effect and operation also after calling all the record from the respondents or to mould the relief by safeguarding the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ rule or direction in the nature of prohibition to restrain the respondents to take any steps in furtherance to the impugned orders or any proposed or future action in any manner whatsoever keeping in view of the facts highlighted in the body of the petition. (iii) Issue appropriate writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint an independent enquiry agency or judicial officer to enquire the matter in respect of PhD degree awarded since the year 2009 upto till date including irregularities irrespective of examination and store item by taking into consideration the complaints/representations made by the petitioner which is contained as Annexure number 22 (Colly) and action taken by the vigilance department upon the complaint of the petitioner and further enquire the aspect of using undue influence and powers by the Private Respondent no. 11 with aim to cause harm to the petitioner and to give undue and illegal benefits to Private Respondent no. 13, 15 and 18 so the truth may come and fix the liability upon the erring officers and action in accordance with law. (iv) Issue appropriate order or direction to direct the U.G.C. to clarify the position in respect of PhD degree awarded by the University and their validity as per the prevailing Regulations and Ordinances so the controversy in respect of validity of PhD came to an end and further to direct U.G.C. to clarify whether the State Government has any power in respect of deciding the validity of PhD and in the affairs of the University in respect of academics and administrative matters. (v) Issue appropriate writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus to award Damages and compensations in tune with the amount which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper keeping in view of the facts highlighted in the body of petition from the Private Respondents jointly and severally for their tortuous acts towards the petitioner. (vi) Issue appropriate order or direction to direct the Director General of Police Uttarakhand and Hon’ble Chancellor to take decision on the Pending Representation of the petitioner keeping in view of the atrocious and malafide act of the Private Respondent no. 11, 12, 13, 15 and 18 and to provide adequate security to the petitioner for his life and liberty from the Private Respondents.” (3) After arguing for a while, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum. (4) Learned Counsels for the opposite parties submitted that they have no objection if the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is granted. (5) Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.3.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.19 17:24:48 +05'30'