RAJIV GUPTA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPMB/497/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010103062026

Filing Number

WPMB/5373/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPMB/497/2026

Registration Date

10-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

MISC MATTERS ( 47 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJIV GUPTA

    Adv. GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,KHUSHBOO TIWARI SHARMA,KHUSHBOO TIWARI SHARMA, ,KHUSHBOO TIWARI SHARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND PITCUL

    Adv. ARUSHI BATRA

  3. 3.UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

    Adv. DHARMENDRA BARTHWAL

  4. 4.UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDHYUT NIGAM LIMITED

    Adv. VINAY KUMAR

  5. 5.PRAKASH CHANDRA DHYANI

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash UpadhyayView PDF

    Case WPMB/497/2026 Summary: The court adjourned the case to the first week of July 2026. Petitioner Rajiv Gupta's counsel was granted time to file an affidavit clarifying whether the petitioner is still employed or has retired. Respondents were directed to obtain instructions from their respective organizations before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPMB/497/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case WPMB/497/2026 Summary: The court adjourned the case to the first week of July 2026. Petitioner Rajiv Gupta's counsel was granted time to file an affidavit clarifying whether the petitioner is still employed or has retired. Respondents were directed to obtain instructions from their respective organizations before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case