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
Filing Number
WPMS/4751/2026
Filing Date
27-May-2026
Registration No
WPMS/1586/2026
Registration Date
27-May-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
30-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANJAY KUMAR
Adv. ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA,RAMESH NAINWAL,RAMESH NAINWAL, ,RAMESH NAINWAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM HARIDWAR Advocate - SANDEEP KOTHARI
-
2.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Adv. SANDEEP KOTHARI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
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.
-
30-May-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
27-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPMS/1586/2026
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.
Explore other courts