RISHIPAL SHARMA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C., ,DR. KARTIKEY HARI GUPTA,PALLAVI BAHUGUNA,RAFAT MUNIR ALI,IRUM ZEBA — WPPIL /59/2025
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010053632025
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
WPPIL /2657/2025
Filing Date
22-04-2025
Registration No
WPPIL /59/2025
Registration Date
22-04-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ( 45 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RISHIPAL SHARMA
Adv. SIDDHARTHA SINGH,D S NEGI,D S NEGI, D S NEGI
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C., ,DR. KARTIKEY HARI GUPTA,PALLAVI BAHUGUNA,RAFAT MUNIR ALI,IRUM ZEBA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ROORKEE
Adv. LALIT MIGLANI
UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL NIGAM THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Adv. S S CHAUHAN
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4
PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-04-2025 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 26-09-2025 | ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22 | |
| 22-09-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 14-07-2025 | PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4 | |
| 27-06-2025 | PERSONAL APPEARANCE -4 |
Orders
In WPPIL No. 59 of 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court (Bench of C.J. Manoj Kumar Gupta and J. Subhash Upadhyay) adjourned the case for two weeks on 01.04.2026. The adjournment was granted upon the prayer of respondent no. 2's counsel, citing personal difficulty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In WPPIL No. 59 of 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court (Bench of C.J. Manoj Kumar Gupta and J. Subhash Upadhyay) adjourned the case for two weeks on 01.04.2026. The adjournment was granted upon the prayer of respondent no. 2's counsel, citing personal difficulty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts