HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 881 of 2025 (M/S) Vinod Singh ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent Present : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 30.06.2014, passed in Case No.145 of 2009-2010, State Vs. Smt. Vinod Singh and Others (“the case”), by the court of Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar. By it, a property was vested in the State. In the case, the petitioner was not represented when the matter was decided. The petitioner filed Restoration Application No.69 of 2015-2016 in the case, which was dismissed in non-prosecution on 01.02.2016. Again the petitioner filed an application on 01.03.2016 for setting aside the order dated 01.02.2016, passed in the restoration application. That application was rejected by the impugned order dated 11.09.2017, which was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. Garhwal Division, Camp Dehradun, in Appeal No.62 of 2016-2017, Smt. Vinod Singh Vs. State (“the appeal”), on 23.01.2023, and it was further confirmed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.57 of 2022-23, Smt. Vinod Singh Vs. State (“the revision”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.02.2016, the power of attorney of the petitioner was unwell, therefore, he could 2 not appear on the date of hearing. The restoration application was filed within time, but that aspect of the matter has not been considered while deciding the Restoration Application on 11.09.2017 and further, in the orders in Appeal and in Revision, which are impugned, this aspect has not been considered. 4. The factual narration, as given by learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been denied by learned State Counsel. 5. In the instant case, the restoration application was dismissed in non-prosecution on 01.02.2016. When the petitioner filed an application for setting aside this order dated 01.02.2016, it was decided by the impugned order dated 11.09.2017, by the Collector, Haridwar, in Restoration Application No.69 of 2015-2016. The certified copy of the order dated 11.09.2017 is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 6. The restoration application was dismissed while observing that the order dated 30.06.2017, passed in the case, is on merits. In fact, it was not for consideration then. The only consideration, which deserved the attention of the court at that point of time was as to whether the petitioner has good or sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 01.02.2016, when the restoration application was first taken up for hearing, but it was not done. In the appeal also, it was observed that in the case, the petitioner was offered sufficient opportunity of hearing. Similarly, in the Revision also, it was observed that the order dated 23.01.2023, passed in the Appeal, is within jurisdiction. The issue with regard to the non- appearance of the petitioner on 01.02.2016, when the restoration application was taken up for hearing, has not been considered in the impugned orders dated 11.09.2017, passed by the Collector, Haridwar, and also in the Appeal and the Revision, this aspect has 3 not been considered. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 11.09.2017, 23.01.2023 and 19.02.2025, deserve to be set aside. The matter needs to be remanded back to the court of Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar, to decide the Restoration Application dated 01.02.2016, afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.09.2017, 23.01.2023 and 19.02.2025, are set aside. 8. Let the matter be remanded back to the court of Collector/District Magistrate, Haridwar, to decide the Restoration Application (Restoration Application No.69/2015-16) dated 01.03.2016, afresh, in accordance with law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.04.2025 Ravi Bisht