SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 1663 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ajay Joshi & Mr. Pankaj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his claim for allotment of a shop under the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government. According to him, his shop was washed away during flash-floods, which struck Sonprayag in the month of June, 2013; petitioner applied for allotment of a shop under Rehabilitation Policy, however, his application was rejected only on the ground that petitioner’s name does not figure in the joint inspection report and also in the list supplied by Vyapar Sangh/ Traders Association. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a document enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, which is signed by President, Vyapar Sangh, Sonprayag. In the said list, petitioner’s name finds place at serial number 9. He further submits that the said document, which was produced before the SDM concerned, was not considered, instead SDM concerned relied upon a joint inspection report submitted by a team of officers, including SDM and Junior Engineer, Irrigation Department. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that reliance by petitioner on document enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition is misplaced. He submits that in the said document, petitioner is shown to be running a godown and not a shop and the expression ‘shop’ has been added by hand, which appears to be manipulation on the part of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refutes the allegation of manipulation and submits that expression ‘shop’ was added by the President of the Vyapar Sangh in his own handwriting while submitting the list to the SDM. He submits that since SDM has failed to take note of the list of flood affected persons, prepared by Vyapar Sangh, therefore, the matter requires re-consideration by the SDM concerned. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection, if the matter is remanded back to the SDM for re-consideration in the light of available material. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the SDM concerned, who shall examine whether the expression ‘nqdku’ (shop), has been mentioned in the list submitted by Vyapar Sangh, against name of the petitioner in column no. 4 of the list. If the expression ‘shop’ is found present in column 4 against name of the petitioner, then the SDM concerned shall re-examine petitioner’s claim for allotment of the shop, as per the Rehabilitation Policy and take appropriate decision, by passing a reasoned order, within six months from date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a 131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF5 6D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.17 17:16:07 +05'30'