Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1992 (UTT)

NASEEM AHMED QURESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/256/2025 · 2025-02-13

Alok Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:885 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 13th FEBRUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITON NO. 256 of 2025 (M/S) Naseem Ahmed Qureshi and Others ..…Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ..…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Nos.1 to 4 Deputy Advocate General. Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for records and further to quash the order if any passed by respondent no.4 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to stop the petitioners for bring the live birds from outside the State or District Dehradun and also not interfere in the running of chicken shop for selling the chicken flash in the respective shops of the petitioners. 2025:UHC:885 2 (iii) Issue any other or further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.C. Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 3. Mr. G.C. Kandpal, Advocate, on instruction, submitted that the respondent nos.1 to 4 are not restraining the petitioners to bring the live birds from outside the State or District Dehradun and also not interfering in the running of chicken shops for selling the chicken flesh in the respective shops of the petitioners. 4. After the said submission, Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition. 5. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 13.02.2025 PANT/ 2025:UHC:885 3