SANJAY KUMAR vs MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM HARIDWAR Advocate - SANDEEP KOTHARI — WPMS/1593/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 30th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010091372026
Filing Number
WPMS/4755/2026
Filing Date
27-May-2026
Registration No
WPMS/1593/2026
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
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/1593/2026 Sanjay Kumar v. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Nagar Nigam Haridwar (High Court of Uttarakhand, 30 May 2026) The court disposed of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by contractors who completed civil works for Nagar Nigam Haridwar during 2024-2025 but remained unpaid. Rather than granting an immediate mandamus for payment with 18% interest, the court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations within two weeks, which the respondent must consider and decide within eight weeks by passing reasoned orders in accordance with law. 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/1593/2026
Case Summary: WPMS/1593/2026 Sanjay Kumar v. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Nagar Nigam Haridwar (High Court of Uttarakhand, 30 May 2026) The court disposed of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by contractors who completed civil works for Nagar Nigam Haridwar during 2024-2025 but remained unpaid. Rather than granting an immediate mandamus for payment with 18% interest, the court directed petitioners to submit fresh representations within two weeks, which the respondent must consider and decide within eight weeks by passing reasoned orders in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts