Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4642 (UTT)

MOHAMMAD AAMIR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/968/2025 · 2025-04-02

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D1- 28 WPMS No.968 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no.3. Heard. It is the case of the petitioners that they were street vendors; their shops have been removed from the place where they were sitting; the respondent no.3, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, had assured that they would be provided some other place for vending, but despite representation having been made, it has not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not being provided the alternate place for sitting and vending. The petitioners had made a representation, which is Annexure No.7 to the writ pettition. Therefore, directions may be issued so that the representation may be decided. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit that the representation that has been made by the petitioners shall be decided within four weeks from today. The petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.3 that if such representation(s) is made by the petitioners, the same shall be decided within a period of four weeks by the respondent no.3, in accordance with the law/guidelines. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 02.04.2025 RV