2026:UHC:2050-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 139 OF 2026 23RD MARCH, 2026 Neeru Garg …… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel (through VC) assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma and Ms. Khushboo Tiwari and Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 : Mr. Natraj K.M., learned Additional Solicitor General (through VC) assisted by Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State / respondent Nos. 3 and 4 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1) Heard. 1 2026:UHC:2050-DB 2) The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers : “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5th March, 2026 issued by respondent No. 1 (ANNEXURE No. 14). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th March, 2026 by means of which petitioner was relieved by the State of Uttarakhand (ANNEXURE No. 15). (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th March, 2026 issued by the Office of the Director General of Police (ANNEXURE No. 16).” 3) At the outset learned Senior Counsel Mr. Natraj K.M., appearing along with Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Chief Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is from Indian Police Service which is a Central Service and, therefore, in view of Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of challenging the orders before the Central Administrative 2 2026:UHC:2050-DB Tribunal in the first instance. Specific reliance has been placed on paragraph 93 of the said judgment. 4) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner though has made submissions at quite some length on different dates, finally states that the petitioner would avail the remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, he prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. All pleas and contentions are left open for being raised before the Tribunal. 6) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 23RD MARCH, 2026 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf 116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.03.24 15:16:01 +05'30'