2025:UHC:11521-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 76/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate, i/b Mr. Anchit Khokher, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2 and 3. (2) Petitioner was awarded a contract for collection of entry fee by District Tourism Development Committee, Dehradun. According to him, the local goons were not permitting him to collect entry fee. He, therefore, filed writ petition seeking a mandamus to state authorities to hand over possession of the site in question to him and also to restrain the local goons and their musclemen from interfering in collection of entry fee from the site, by him. He also sought protection to his staff. Writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 5.3.2025. Following observation was made in para 6 of the said judgment: “6. The petitioner has a commercial relationship with the respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner that a MOU has been executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. If respondent no.2 is not fulfilling the part of his obligation under MOU, the petitioner may seek such remedy, as available to him under the MOU. This Court cannot deliver possession of any site. Even this Court cannot enter into the private dispute of the parties relating to an agreement. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.” 2025:UHC:11521-DB (3) Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and 3, points out that after decision in the writ petition, the agreement entered into between petitioner and District Tourism Development Committee was cancelled on 15.9.2025 and whatever amount was deposited in terms of the said agreement, including the performance security, has been refunded to petitioner. He thus submits that now none of the grievances raised by petitioner in his writ petition survives, as he has received back the entire money. (4) We find substance in the submission made by Mr. Kothari. After refund of money deposited by the appellant-writ petitioner, in terms of the agreement, the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition and also in this special appeal do not survive. Special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of by taking the statement made by Mr. Sandeep Kothari on record. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.12.2025 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB58805 2DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.24 11:02:35 +05'30' 2025:UHC:11521-DB