Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7308 (UTT)

MOHAMMAD NAHID KHAN v. DM HARIDWAR DISTT HARIDWAR

WPMS/1569/2025 · 2025-06-06

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS D/11 WPMS No.1569 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mohd. Shaify, Advocates for respondent no.3. Mr. S.K. Goel, Advocate for the Gram Sabha, Shivnagar, District Haridwar. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar has only banned the preparation and sale of meat in Annual Urs, which is held at Hazrat Shah Mohammad Shah Rah/Hazrat Shah Shaheed alias Katha Peer located at Pathri Jungle, Tehsil and District Haridwar, which has no basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an Annual Urs is organised for many years now; the sale and preparation of meat has been banned by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that on 23.05.2025, he has given a representation to the respondent no.1, the District Magistrate, Haridwar on the subject, but no direction has been passed on it. Learned counsel appearing for Gram Pradhan/Gram Sabha Shivnagar, Tehsil Haridwar would submit that based on the complaints of local residents, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Laksar has passed an order on 31.05.2025, which states that allotment of Haat Bazar was done subject to condition that meat shall not be sold from such Teh Bazari Market and the petitioners want to violate those terms of Teh Bazar allotment. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not holding any Teh Bazari. He would submit that the petitioners have given a representation, therefore, their representation may be decided. Learned State Counsel would submit that the representation may be decided on or before 09.06.2025. The petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.1, to take a decision on the representation that has been given by the petitioners and others (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) on or before 09.06.2025. The Court requests learned State Counsel to communicate this order for its compliance to the respondent no.1, immediately. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.06.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd5046 86df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC 450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.06.06 19:42:48 +05'30'