RAJVEER KAUR vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPMS /719/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st April 2026.
CNR: UKHC010045632026
Filing Number
WPMS /2424/2026
Filing Date
23-03-2026
Registration No
WPMS /719/2026
Registration Date
23-03-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
MISC MATTERS ( 47 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJVEER KAUR
Adv. PARIKSHIT SAINI
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Adv. C.S.C.
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
Adv. C.S.C.
TEHSILDAR JASPUR TEHSIL
Adv. C.S.C.
REVENUE SUB INSPECTOR
Adv. C.S.C.
DHARMENDRA SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 01-04-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 25-03-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand set aside the District Magistrate's order removing Gram Pradhan Rajveer Kaur from office, finding that mandatory procedural requirements under the applicable 1997 Removal Rules were violated. Though the petitioner's husband was found in unauthorized government land possession (a disqualification ground), the court held that the Pradhan should have been given opportunity to submit her defense through a preliminary inquiry before removal, which was not done. The authorities were permitted to proceed afresh while strictly following the prescribed legal procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand set aside the District Magistrate's order removing Gram Pradhan Rajveer Kaur from office, finding that mandatory procedural requirements under the applicable 1997 Removal Rules were violated. Though the petitioner's husband was found in unauthorized government land possession (a disqualification ground), the court held that the Pradhan should have been given opportunity to submit her defense through a preliminary inquiry before removal, which was not done. The authorities were permitted to proceed afresh while strictly following the prescribed legal procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts