Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 772 (UTT)

DAYANAND JOSHI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/537/2026 · 2026-03-12

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.537 of 2026 Dayanand Joshi …………Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. 3. Vide order dated 10.03.2026 instructions were sought from the State Counsel. 4. Today, on instructions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the allotment of fair price shop is under consideration to be allotted to one-Shree Prakash Singh Rawat s/o Chaman Singh Rawat in whose favour the resolution of Gram Panchayat has also been received. 5. The petitioner cannot be granted the fair price shop pursuance to the earlier resolution which he claims to be passed by the Gram Panchayat in his favour for the reason that during that period the real sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the petitioner was Gram Pradhan, therefore, such a resolution cannot be passed in favour of the petitioner in view of the Government Order dated 15.10.2005 Clause V – which prohibits the allotment of the fair price shop to any of the family members of the Pradhan and Up-pradhan. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy as and when cause of action would arise in his favour 7. Permission so sought is granted. 2 8. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.03.2026 SK