2026:UHC:1384 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 485 of 2026 27 February, 2026 Ms Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel or respondent no.4. Mr. Manav Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.5, 6 & 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent no. 1 to decide the appeal (along with the stay application) filed by the petitioner dated 18.02.2026 under Section 15(4) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (as amended and adopted in the State of Uttarakhand), against the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by respondent no. 2, expeditiously. 2. At the first blush, it was found that the appeal is against the order dated 16.02.2026, which was filed on 18.02.2026; therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to direct respondent no.1 to decide the appeal expeditiously. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits before that the crushing season would come to an end in the first week of April, 2026, and the 2026:UHC:1384 2 order which is impugned in the appeal is only for this crushing season; therefore, this writ petition has been filed for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 3. There is no objection from the side of the respondent/State as well as respondent no. 4, if such prayer is granted by this Court. However, a vehement objection has been raised by the counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 that the appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order which has been passed by respondent no. 1–Secretary after remand of the matter from the appellate authority at the first instance. 4. Be that as it may, it will not make any difference because the appeal is pending and the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel is for its expeditious disposal. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no. 1 to decide the appeal pending before it, filed by the petitioner on 18.02.2026 against the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by respondent no. 2, as expeditiously as possible but not later than 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 27.02.2026 AK