SANJAY KUMAR vs MUKHYA NAGAR ADHIKARI NAGAR NIGAM HARIDWAR Advocate - SANDEEP KOTHARI — WPMS/1603/2026

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

CNR: UKHC010091532026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPMS/4766/2026

Filing Date

27-05-2026

Registration No

WPMS/1603/2026

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

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

Summary of WPMS/1603/2026: The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of 17 consolidated writ petitions filed by Sanjay Kumar and others against Nagar Nigam Haridwar for non-payment of completed civil construction works. Rather than issuing a direct mandamus, the court granted petitioners liberty to submit fresh representations within two weeks, directing the municipality to decide these representations within eight weeks by passing reasoned orders. The respondent's counsel did not oppose this relief-oriented approach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WPMS/1603/2026: The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of 17 consolidated writ petitions filed by Sanjay Kumar and others against Nagar Nigam Haridwar for non-payment of completed civil construction works. Rather than issuing a direct mandamus, the court granted petitioners liberty to submit fresh representations within two weeks, directing the municipality to decide these representations within eight weeks by passing reasoned orders. The respondent's counsel did not oppose this relief-oriented approach. 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