Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/877/2013 of Smt. Pratibha Bisht Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 877 of 2013 Smt. Pratibha Bisht … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Mr. Rajesh S. Nagarkoti and Mr. Vishal Singh Mahara, Advocates, present for the petitioner Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 877 of 2013
Smt. Pratibha Bisht
… Petitioner
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Mr. Rajesh S. Nagarkoti and Mr. Vishal Singh Mahara, Advocates, present for the petitioner Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional C.S.C., present for the State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner is Gram Pradhan of Gram Kothiya, Gram Sabha Beerokhal, District Pauri Garhwal. There were allegations against the Gram Pradhan for misappropriation of public funds. Subsequently an enquiry was constituted by the District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal, which reveals that certain amount, which was to be utilized for particular public purposes, has not been utilized properly, therefore, an amount of `36,786/-, the petitioner, was asked to deposit.
2. According to the petitioner, this amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. Although, the petitioner files an appeal before the Commissioner, who did not find anything in the order of the District Magistrate as the order was passed after conducting the enquiry.
3. By and large the procedure adopted, which ought to have been adopted has been followed; no ground for interference is made out in the impugned order.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)