VINOD KATHAIT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPMS/1744/2026

Case under Under Article 227 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010097632026

Filing Number

WPMS/5086/2026

Filing Date

03-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPMS/1744/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIVIL COURT ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

09-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 227 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD KATHAIT

    Adv. DEEPAK PETSHALI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.RETURNING OFFICER

    Adv. SANJAY BHATT

  4. 4.RINKI NAUTIYAL

  5. 5.OMKAR NAUTIYAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar TiwariView PDF

    The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the District Judge's order that rejected the petitioner's application to be struck off from an election petition filed against his wife. The court held that whether the petitioner or his family encroached on government land is a substantive question for the Election Tribunal to determine, and therefore the petitioner's name could not be removed based solely on a Tehsildar's report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

  4. 08-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPMS/1744/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the District Judge's order that rejected the petitioner's application to be struck off from an election petition filed against his wife. The court held that whether the petitioner or his family encroached on government land is a substantive question for the Election Tribunal to determine, and therefore the petitioner's name could not be removed based solely on a Tehsildar's report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case