Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2505/2026 of SANJAY KUMAR BAMOLA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 18 August 2026

2026:UHC:7395

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2505/2026 Sanjay Kumar Bamola --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms.

UKHC010146042026

2026:UHC:7395 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPMS/2505/2026

Sanjay Kumar Bamola --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Ms. Seema Sah and Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocates for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Tarun Mohan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1.

3. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

4. Petitioner has challenged a sealing order passed by Joint Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA), on 16.03.2026. He has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to open the seal put on the building of the petitioner.

5. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for MDDA submits that even though petitioner had obtained approval from Development Authority for raising construction, however, the construction, which was raised by him, was way beyond the sanctioned plan and based on the inspection report, sealing order was passed. He submits that petitioner can apply for

Page 1 of 3

UKHC010146042026

2026:UHC:7395 compounding of compoundable portion of the construction and the competent authority will consider the prayer, if made by petitioner, for compounding.

6. The inspection report, based on which sealing order was passed, is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said report was prepared without making spot inspection.

8. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. There is always a presumption that action of a statutory authority is as per law.

9. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to submit application for compounding. If petitioner makes such application within one week from today, Secretary, MDDA shall take decision on that application, as per law, within six weeks thereafter.

Page 2 of 3

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.08.2026 Navin

NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a 131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.08.20 17:57:24 +05'30'

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead