Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7009 (UTT)

AKBAR ALI AND ORS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/1519/2025 · 2025-06-30

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 65 WPMS No. 1519 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 4. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners claim that they are commission agents under the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation)Act, 2011. They trade in the Mandi Samiti area of Ramnagar, District Nainital. But, recently they were given notices to remove their possession from the Nilami Chabutra and orally also they were given deadline to remove their possession. The petitioners seek relief that the respondents may be restrained to evict the petitioners from the existing auction platform/Nilam Chabutara and other ancillary reliefs have also been sought. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are commission agents. They pay license fee and Mandi fee. They trade into various commodities which are brought at the auction platform. Now, they are required to vacate the platform. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioners had encroached certain area in the market yard by putting their beds, fans, CCTVs. They were required to vacate the possession and in view of Section 27 (j) of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011, their unauthorized occupation has been removed. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that petitioners were always provided space for auction and it shall continue to be provided to them at an identified place. There shall be no obstruction in that activity. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. In view of the statement given by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, nothing survives in this petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 30.06.2025 Jitendra