UKHC010089322026 2026:UHC:6035 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1563/2026 Kalpana Rawat …Petitioner Versus District Tourism Development Authority …Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner availed advance facility under Veer Chandra Garhwali Tourism Development Scheme and out of the money so taken, she constructed a hotel in District Tehri Garhwal. As per the Scheme, subsidy to the extent of 33 percent of the loan amount, is to be given, and subsidy was also given to the petitioner. Now petitioner has been asked to return the amount, which was paid to her as subsidy vide notice dated 09.04.2026. 4. The reason assigned for asking petitioner to return the amount of subsidy is that she constructed hotel on a plot other than the plot owned by her, and part of the hotel was constructed by her over Government land. 5. Petitioner contends that she is the absolute owner of the land, over which hotel was constructed; there was confusion regarding identity/number of the plot, therefore, petitioner purchased the adjoining plot also, thus, no part of UKHC010089322026 2026:UHC:6035 the hotel is constructed over anybody elses land. It is further contended that petitioner meets all eligibility conditions under the Scheme, therefore, she was rightly given subsidy and she cannot be asked to return the amount. 6. Learned State Counsel contends that writ petition is premature, as petitioner has approached this Court against a notice, even though she could have given reply to the notice. He further submits that Rule 22 of Uttarakhand Tourism and Travel Business Registration Rules, 2026 framed under Section 20(1) of Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board Act, 2001 provides for remedy of appeal. 7. Since petitioner has challenged notice dated 09.04.2026, whereby she was called upon to give reply to the issues raised against her, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to give reply to the notice within two weeks. Reply, if given within stipulated time, shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken, as per law, within six weeks. For a period of eight weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner. However, if petitioner fails to give reply within two weeks, then she will not be entitled to protection of this order and the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed against her, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 20.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512 ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.20 07:02:34 -07'00'