HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2236 of 2025 (M/S) Rajneesh Narula ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Faizan Ahmad and Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. 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 certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 02.07.2025, issued by respondent no.5, Tehsildar, Tehsil Dehradun Sadar, District Dehradun (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take a decision on the application moved by the petitioner dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a recovery has been initiated against the petitioner for amount of tax, as imposed under the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Rules, 2003 (“the Rules”); the petitioner is ready to file an appeal under Rule 27 of the Rules, therefore, for ten working days, the operation of the impugned recovery citation may be kept in abeyance. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal under the provisions of the Rules, for next 2 ten days, the operation of the impugned recovery citation may be kept in abeyance. 5. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned State Counsel. 6. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal under Rule 27 of the Rules, a remedy which the petitioner proposes to avail. Therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. 8. However, for the next ten working days, the operation of the impugned recovery citation shall remain in abeyance so that the petitioner may avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 29.07.2025 Ravi Bisht