HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3622 of 2025 Amit Goyal ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The petitioner claims that he has to pay Rs. 60,20,897/-, but he is short of the resources, therefore, he may be given some time. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted a liquor shop in “Galla Mandi Kashipur Road”, District Udham Singh Nagar; but, due to Covid-19 pandemic, there were multiple losses. Petitioner filed appeal and thereafter revision, and amount has been reduced, but still recovery for Rs. 60,20,897/- has been made. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount, but he needs some time to repay it. 4. This Court cannot assess the financial capacity of the petitioner. The liability is admitted. If the petitioner seeks some time, he may approach the authority concerned. This Court has no doubt that in case the petitioner deposits substantial portion of the amount 2 sought to be recovered from the petitioner and prays for some time, the authority may perhaps consider the request of the petitioner. But, for that purpose, the writ petition may not be entertained. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 30.12.2025 Avneet/