Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3822 (UTT)

RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/530/2017 · 2025-03-18

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1832-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 530 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. This writ petition was filed in 2017 challenging the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Uttarakhand. By the said order, one Mr. Deepak Kumar, serving as General Manager in Uttarakhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd, was appointed as Managing Director of the said Bank, till further orders. There was a further stipulation made in the order dated 03.04.2017 that the appointment of Mr. Deepak Kumar shall abide by final outcome of WPSB No. 68 of 2017 (Deepak Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand). 5. Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent – Bank submits that Mr. Deepak Kumar, who was appointed as Managing Director by the order impugned, was replaced by new incumbent on the post of Managing Director; she further submits that WPSB No. 68 of 2017 was also dismissed as infructuous on account of the said development. She, thus, submits that 2025:UHC:1832-DB present writ petition has become infructuous, as Mr. Deepak Kumar no more holds the post of Managing Director. 6. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concedes that the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, do not survive. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.03.2025 Aswal