2025:UHC:881 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.2735 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Reema Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 3. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.2. 2. Against a notice under Section 211 of Uttarakhand Municipalities Act, 1916, petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 318 of the said Act. The said Appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun vide order dated 19.06.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reveals that petitioner’s Appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that State Government has not authorized the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear Appeals under Section 318 of the Act and the Appeal should lie before the District Magistrate. 4. Petitioner challenged the view taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and contended that the Appeal was very much maintainable before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, the ground taken for dismissing the Appeal, is unsustainable. 2025:UHC:881 5. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instruction, as to whether State Government has authorized any Officer to hear Appeals, under Section 318 of the Act. Learned State Counsel supplied in Court today Written Instructions dated 19.12.2024 issued by D eputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, which is taken on record. Alongwith the said instructions, copy of Government Order dated 19.12.2024 is also enclosed. From perusal of the Government Order as well as Written Instructions, it is revealed that State Government has not authorized any Officer, in terms of provision contained in sub-section(1) of Section 318 of Uttarakhand Municipalities Act. Thus, the view taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be faulted. In the absence of any authorization, the Appeal would lie before the District Magistrate, as per mandate of sub-section(1) of Section 318 of Uttarakhand Municipalities Act. 6. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for Appeal and also for damages/compensation. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2025 Arpan