2026:UHC:1319 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 469 of 2026 26 February, 2026 Mona Bedi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rahul Consul and Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to ensure that no construction is raised by the respondent no.4 in violation of the sanctioned plan. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to immediately action against the respondent no.4 for having raised construction in violation of the sanctioned plan under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973. III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to ensure that the height of the building is not raised beyond 24.5 feet above the ground level by the respondent no.4. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that on the similar set of facts, one writ petition being WPMS No.3418 of 2025 had been filed by petitioner, which was disposed of 2026:UHC:1319 2 finally by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025, whereby, respondent No.2 was directed to decide the representation of petitioner within four weeks’ from passing of that order and further to ensure that no major construction shall be undertaken by respondent No.4 till the decision would be taken in the matter. Thus, he submits that second writ petition would not be maintainable for the same relief. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has moved a detailed representation to respondent No.3, but till date, no action has been taken upon the said representation and the respondent No.4 is continuing with the working. 4. Be that as it may, when the order has been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition, without waiting that order to be complied with, the second writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. Petitioner has got remedy to enforce the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition. 5. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed in-limine. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.02.2026 PN