HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2025 (M/S) M/S Kothari Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. ….......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Satendra Singh Lingwal, Advocate for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4 appeared through video conferencing. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 23.04.2025, passed in Appeal No.10 of 2024, Kothari Nursing Home Pvt. Limited vs. Cantonment Board Dehradun and another, under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (“the Act”), by the Lieutenant General, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Appellate Authority; challenge is also made to the demolition order and other orders, passed in this regard. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. On the last occasion, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted against the order passed in appeal, a review application has already been filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act, which is pending consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order passed in the appeal in the review petition, but, on the one hand, no action is being taken on 2 the review application and, on the other hand, the Cantonment Board has proceeded to demolish the property. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 gives a statement that no proceeding for demolition has yet been taken against the petitioner. He gives a statement that till the review application is decided the status quo qua the property-in-question shall be maintained. 6. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 4 gives a statement that the review petition may be decided within 4 months. 8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed in the appeal as well as the sealing order, but the petitioner has also challenged the order, passed in the appeal in the review petition, which is still pending. 9. Since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of review under Section 57 of the Act, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The petition is dismissed in limine. However, till the review filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the Act is decided status quo qua the property-in-question shall be maintained. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.07.2025 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=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d 1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A8 4B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.08.01 10:26:56 +05'30'