HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2025 (M/S) Himalaya Organics Agro Pvt. Ltd. ….......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith remove the four big statues which have been fixed/installed just adjacent/attaching to the front boundary wall of petitioner’s property 194-A, Rajpur Road Dehradun. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction, which is this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award of the cost of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns a property bearing No.194-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, which is a residential property and is in exclusive possession of the petitioner. Under the Smart City Mission in the year 2017, Dehradun city was included 2 in the list of cities which were to be developed as Smart City and the operations in this regard have already concluded on 31.03.2025. But, thereafter, four big statues adjacent to the boundary walls of the petitioner’s property have been installed by the respondents. The petitioner at that stage has moved a writ petition bearing WPMS No.1560 of 2025, Himalaya Organics Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and others (“the first petition”), which was decided by this Court on 04.06.2025, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. But, without deciding the representation, the statues were installed on 10.06.2025. The petitioner further moved representation. When the statues were not removed, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to remove the four big statues. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Smart City Project has already concluded on 31.03.2025; in the first petition, the Court had directed the respondent no.4/Chief Executing Officer (“the CEO”), Smart City Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner, but without deciding the representation, the statues have been installed. It is argued that it is wastage of public money; it has destroyed the wall of the petitioner; there is no mention of installation of statues under the Smart City Project. He also submits that the CEO never gave any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the representation. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that under the Smart City Project, the statues have been installed; it is not installed in 3 the property of the petitioner rather it is on the public property; pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2025, passed by this Court in the first petition, the CEO repeatedly issued notices to the petitioner, which he denied to accept; multiple methods were adopted to serve on the petitioner, in fact, a telephonic call was also made to him, but he never responded. Thereafter, by a detailed speaking order dated 11.07.2025, his representation was rejected. He has tendered for perusal of the Court the order passed on the representation of the petitioner. Let it be taken on record. 6. The Court wanted to know from the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to what individual right of the petitioner has been infringed? He submits that the boundary wall of the petitioner has been destroyed. This contention has less force. 7. Admittedly, the statues have been installed, not on the property of the petitioner. It is definitely adjacent to the boundary wall of the petitioner on the property owned by the State Government. Therefore, it gives no cause to the petitioner to dispute the placing of the statues. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.07.2025 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=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686d f4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450 A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.07.25 16:58:06 +05'30'