SANJAY KUMAR vs MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM HARIDWAR Advocate - SANDEEP KOTHARI — WPMS/1586/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 30th May 2026.

CNR: UKHC010091322026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPMS/4751/2026

Filing Date

27-05-2026

Registration No

WPMS/1586/2026

Registration Date

27-05-2026

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

30th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

SANJAY KUMAR

Adv. ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA,RAMESH NAINWAL,RAMESH NAINWAL, ,RAMESH NAINWAL

Respondent(s)

MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM HARIDWAR Advocate - SANDEEP KOTHARI

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Adv. SANDEEP KOTHARI

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

30-05-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

30-05-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Case Summary: WPMS/1586/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by contractors (including Sanjay Kumar) against Nagar Nigam Haridwar for non-payment of completed civil works. The court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations to the municipality within two weeks, which must be decided within eight weeks with reasoned orders, rather than granting the demanded mandamus for immediate payment with 18% interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPMS/1586/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by contractors (including Sanjay Kumar) against Nagar Nigam Haridwar for non-payment of completed civil works. The court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations to the municipality within two weeks, which must be decided within eight weeks with reasoned orders, rather than granting the demanded mandamus for immediate payment with 18% interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case