Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5208 (UTT)

NITIN TYAGI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HARIDWAR

WPMS/11/2026 · 2026-01-05

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:136 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PMS/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 4. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 6. 5. Petitioner has challenged inter- departmental correspondence, issued by District Magistrate, Haridwar to Joint Magistrate, Roorkee. The said letter was issued on 6.9.2025 on a complaint received from respondent no. 5. By the said communication, Joint Magistrate was asked to inquire as to whether petitioner had suppressed relevant information in his nomination papers submitted before his election as Corporator, Municipal Corporation, Roorkee. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by District Magistrate is without jurisdiction and the complainant, if is really serious in the matter, could have filed an election petition under Section 62. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned communication; the impugned communication is not addressed to the petitioner and it is simply an inter departmental communication, which was issued based on a written complaint received from respondent no. 5. Thus, learned State 2026:UHC:136 Counsel submits that the writ petition is not only premature but without any cause of action, as no legal injury is caused to the petitioner, by the impugned communication. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Without there being any prejudice caused to the petitioner by the impugned communication, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise objection before the Inquiry Officer. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 5.1.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.05 17:30:34 +05'30'