High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 08 UK CK 0052

Amit Khanr & Others vs Jai Bharat Singh

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 4 August 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 324 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 302 words

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioners filed WPMS No. 1318 of 2021 challenging a Resolution passed by Nagar Nigam Haridwar in its meeting held on 30.01.2021. By the said

Resolution, it was provided that Contractor, residing within limits of Municipal Corporation Haridwar alone, shall be registered as Contractor by the

Municipal Corporation.

2.

Writ Court vide order dated 16.07.2021 stayed the Resolution, which was numbered as ‘19’ till the next date of listing.

3.

In the contempt petition, it is alleged that opposite party is willfully violating the order of this Court, inasmuch as, despite the stay granted against the

Resolution No. ‘19’, Nagar Nigam Haridwar is not registering/renewing the Contractors, who were residing outside the limits of Municipal

Corporation.

4.

This Court vide order dated 03.08.2021 directed the petitioner’s counsel to serve copy of the contempt petition to Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate

so that he may get necessary instructions in the matter.

5.

Today, on instructions, Mr. Lalit Miglani, appearing for the opposite party submits that applications for renewal/registration, submitted by the

petitioners, have been received by the Nagar Nigam Haridwar and their applications would be considered on merits in terms of order passed by Writ

Court in WPMS No. 1318 of 2021. He further submits that as of now, no decision has been taken on any application submitted by Contractors for

registration/renewal.

6.

In view of the assurance given on behalf of the opposite party that petitioners’ applications would be considered on merits, in accordance with

law, along with other applicants and further in view of the assurance given by Mr. Lalit Miglani that petitioners would not be subjected to any hostile

discrimination, based on their place of residence, the Contempt Petition is disposed of taking the statement of Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for the

opposite party on record.