AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:
“i.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing and setting aside the Annexure-1 (page no.13) cancellation order no.C-1312/marketing/ISBT Café/2026-27 dated 24.06.2026 issued by respondent no.3, Manager / In-charge (Marketing), Garhwal.
ii.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to permit the petitioner to continue operating the Cafe/Aanchal Booth peacefully in terms of the agreement dated 31.01.2026.
iii.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to decide the pending representation dated 19.08.2026 submitted by the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv.issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
v.award costs in favour of the petitioner.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Cafe/Anchal Booth was allotted to him by the respondents vide agreement dated 31.01.2026. The petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary order dated 24.06.2026 passed by respondent no.3 by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the cafe and to pay an amount of ₹18,740/- towards the electricity bills and ₹30,400/-towards rent of cafe from March 2026 to June, 2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the agreement was executed with respondent no.2 (Managing Director) and the impugned order has been passed by respondent no.3 as such the impugned order is without jurisdiction. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that an approval was sought from respondent no.2 (the Managing Director) and the impugned order was passed on the ground of violation of Clause 15 of the agreement executed between the parties. He further submits that the petitioner can invoke Clause 23 of the agreement wherein it is provided that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same shall be decided by the Director/ Registrar, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand.
He thus submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alterative remedy to get redressal of his grievance.
This Court has considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and, is of the view that as per the agreement dated 31.01.2026 and more particularly, Clause 23 of the said agreement, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Director/ Registrar, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand for redressal of his grievance.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Director/ Registrar, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand. In case such a representation is made within a period of one week from today, the same shall be decided by the Director/Registrar Dairy Development Department within next two weeks thereafter after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of.