2026:UHC:884-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. 13th February, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No. 88 of 2026 Vipin Kumar Agarwal ------------Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Ltd. and another ----------Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Shri D.S.Patni, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Bartwhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.2. JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The present petition has been filed praying for quashing of the tender notice dated 28.01.2026 issued by the respondents to the extent it relates to the petitioner’s godown being godown no. UCFD-5029 having the capacity of 1000 metric ton. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith regularize the lease of the petitioner of the said godown on such terms and conditions as may be specified by this Court. 2. The impugned tender notice seeks to invite 1 2026:UHC:884-DB tenders for leasing out 15 godowns and 27 shops to a single entity. One of the shops covered by the tender notice is in possession of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has been in occupation of the shop as lessee on the basis of lease agreement dated 02.04.2008 and the respondents, therefore, cannot be permitted to hold any auction and he be permitted to continue as lessee on terms and conditions that may be specified by this Court. 3. The lease agreement in favour of the petitioner is dated 02.04.2008 and thereunder the lease was for a period of 11 months starting from 01.03.2008. The lease rent fixed at the time was 23,000/- per month. Admittedly, the lease has expired long back but the petitioner has continued in possession, paying the same rent. At present, the petitioner does not have any right left in the leased premises. The petitioner also has a right to participate in the auction, if so advised. 4. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 13.02.2026 Kaushal 2