Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3778 (UTT)

VARUN KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/1075/2026 · 2026-04-24

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3078 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1075 of 2026 24 April, 2026 Varun Kumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent in not deciding the application of the petitioner dated 04.04.2026, Annexure-12 to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner wants to open an Indian Made Foreign Liquor shop near Daak Bangla, Kaladhungi, Bajoon Road. 2. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was allotted an Indian Made Foreign Liquor shop by the District Magistrate, Nainital, for the financial years 2026–27 and 2027–28 at Nainital Road No. 3 (Kaladhungi Bajoon Marg). Due to agitation, the said shop could not be opened at the given place and the petitioner, therefore, has given two options to permit him to open the shop near Daak Bangla or near Mangoli on Kaladhungi-Nainital Road. For the said purpose, the petitioner has moved an application before respondent no.2-District Magistrate on 04.04.2026, 2026:UHC:3078 2 which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. 3. The main grievance canvassed by the petitioner before this Court is that the said application has yet not been decided by respondent no. 2, which is incurring loss to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner has made an innocuous prayer before this Court that if respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the application dated 04.04.2026, Annexure-12 to the writ petition, within a stipulated time, justice would be met. 5. To this proposition offered by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no opposition from the side of the State Counsel. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, and it is provided that respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Nainital shall consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.04.2026, Annexure-12 to the writ petition, in accordance with law, expeditiously, but not later than two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.04.2026 AK