HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition(M/S) No. 1693 of 2025 M/s Krishna Associates, through Its proprietor ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. Punit Kansal, Advocate for the respondent no.3 through video conferencing. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned notice dated 04.12.2024 issued by respondent no.2 (annexed at Annexure no.5 of the writ petition) as illegal, arbitrary and irrational. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was awarded a contract to install hoardings/Unipoles within the Nagar Palika, Shivalik Nagar. But, now the respondent no.2, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (“the BHEL”) has issued impugned notice to remove those hoardings/Unipoles. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was awarded a contract to install hoarding/Unipoles within Nagar Palika Parishad. The petitioner has already installed hoarding/Unipoles, but now the BHEL has issued an impugned notice. 5. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how it could be said that the Unipoles that are proposed to be removed by the BHEL falls within the limit of the respondent no.3, Nagar Palika, Shivalik Nagar, (“the Nagar Palika”) because the impugned notice records that the land, where the petitioner has installed hoardings/Unipoles is within the ownership of the BHEL. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the location is within the limit of the Nagar Palika, under Cluster A. 7. Learned counsel for the Nagar Palika, joined the proceedings through video conferencing. He would submit that the petitioner was awarded a contract to install hoardings/Unipoles within the Nagar Palika and not beyond that. He submits that on the left side of the road which reach from Haridwar City to District Court, Haridwar the petitioner is awarded contract to install those hoardings/Unipoles because it falls within Nagar Palika, but on its right side, the land belongs to BHEL, where the petitioner cannot install hoardings/Unipoles. He submits that, in fact, a notice was given to the petitioner on 10.12.2024 by the Nagar Palika, which is Annexure 6 to the petition. 3 8. Learned counsel for the BHEL would submit that the petition has rendered infructuous because the Unipole which were installed by the petitioner on the land owned by the BHEL have already been removed. He would submit that total 14 Unipoles were installed, which have been removed. 9. The petitioner claims that he has right to install Unipoles in an area, from where the respondent no.2, BHEL, by impugned notice directed the petitioner to remove those Unipoles. But, the Nagar Palika, claims that the petitioner has installed hoardings/Unipoles on the land of the BHEL. Therefore, the petitioner has no case, as such. Even otherwise, on behalf of the BHEL it is stated that all the 14 Unipoles which were installed by the petitioner have already been removed. 10. In view of the above, nothing survives in this petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 17.06.2025 Jitendra