MOHAMMAD SHAMIN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1535/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010101112026

Filing Number

WPSS/5282/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1535/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )

Sub-Category

TRANSFER ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHAMMAD SHAMIN

    Adv. VINOD NAUTIYAL,APOORV NAUTIYAL,APOORV NAUTIYAL, ,APOORV NAUTIYAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.CHIEF TREASURER OFFICER

    Adv. C.S.C.

  4. 4.ASSISTANT TREASURER OFFICER

    Adv. C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

    The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed Mohammad Shamin's writ petition challenging his transfer order from Treasury, Udham Singh Nagar to Sub-treasury, Khatima dated 06.06.2025. The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 because the transfer order had already been executed and the petitioner approached the court after a one-year delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  4. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPSS/1535/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed Mohammad Shamin's writ petition challenging his transfer order from Treasury, Udham Singh Nagar to Sub-treasury, Khatima dated 06.06.2025. The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 because the transfer order had already been executed and the petitioner approached the court after a one-year delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case