HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1408 of 2025 (M/S) Keshi Ram ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no.4. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to give preference to the petitioner in the allotment process of newly constructed shops at Nainital in accordance with direction given by the State Information Commission Uttarakhand (Contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition). b) Pass such order, which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. c) Award the cost of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. There are some defects in the writ petition. The defects are ignored. 2 4. The petitioner is a street vendor. He claims that his livelihood depends on it. The petitioner sought permission from the respondent no.4/Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, to run his business on a vacant plot situated nearby Tibetan Market, Nainital. Various persons were allotted shops in that area. The petitioner, thereafter, approached various authorities, when nothing was done, in one of the proceedings, he approached the Uttarakhand Information Commission, Dehradun (“the Commission”). The Commission on 25.11.2010, directed the respondent no.4/Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, to give preference to the petitioner in the matter of allotment of shops. The petitioner seeks enforcement of the directions of the Commission dated 25.11.2010. 5. The Court, at the very outset, wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision of law, the Commission could pass such order? 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not reveal any provision under which such directions could be passed. 7. Moreover, such directions were passed on 25.11.2010. For enforcing such directions, now the writ petition has been filed almost after 14 years. On this ground alone, the writ petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 20.05.2025 Ravi Bisht