CANTONMENT BOARD, ROORKEE, v. NIKESH CHANDRA AGARWAL
SPA/386/2015 · 2025-04-23
Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1220 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1220 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:2958-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
SPA No.386 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashistha,
learned counsel for appellant.
2. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent.
3. This intra court appeal is directed against
judgment dated 26.05.2015 rendered in Writ Petition No.948 of 2010 (M/S). Operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:-
“Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned
order is quashed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund entire amount deposited by the petitioner within 60 days from today, failing which, respondents shall also pay interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from today till amount is paid to the petitioner.”
4. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent/writ petitioner submits that entire amount deposited by his client, as earnest money with interest, has been returned to him in terms of directions, issued by learned Single Judge. Thus, he submits that special appeal has become infructuous as cause of action, do not survive any longer.
5. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for petitioner has produced in Court copy of an affidavit filed by respondent/writ petitioner before competent authority in department, which is taken on record. By
2025:UHC:2958-DB said affidavit, respondent/writ petitioner had requested for refund of money, deposited by him as earnest money. She also submits that pursuant to request made by respondent/writ petitioner, entire amount alongwith interest was refunded. Thus, she also admits that cause of action, do not survive and special appeal has become infructuous.
6. In view of consensus between parties, special appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.04.2025 Arti
ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b6689 0fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C5 7E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.04.25 16:22:50 +05'30'
2025:UHC:2958-DB