Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8344 (UTT)

RAJESH RASTOGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPPIL/117/2025 · 2025-06-30

Alok Mahra, G Narendar

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5518-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) NO. 117 OF 2025 30th JUNE, 2025 Rajesh Rastogi …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand And Others …… Respondents Presence:- Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) In the instant PIL, the proceedings of the Nagar Palika/4th respondent to change the land allotted for construction of cowshed is being questioned before this Court in the garb of a PIL. 2. The short facts are that, earlier an extent of land was reserved for the construction of a cowshed. Thereafter, the Palika realized that the land reserved for the construction of cowshed was in the vicinity of a pond and as the monsoons bring copious rains it results in the flooding of the land reserved for the cowshed construction and hence they have 1 2025:UHC:5518-DB changed the land that has been reserved and this change of land is now being questioned. 3. The petitioner has not placed any material to demonstrate as to how the land now reserved for construction of cowshed is insufficient. The number of cows on the streets is also not placed before this Court. That apart, the petitioner is also unable to demonstrate as to how he is aggrieved by this act of the Nagar Palika. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Palika is doing away with the providing of Gaushala, but, he is aggrieved by the extent of the land that has now been reserved. It is not the case of the petitioner that the change of allocation, in any manner, prejudices his right or rights of the public. 5. In that view, the petition, in our considered opinion, is misconceived. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 30th June, 2025 Ujjwal 2