Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2222/2018 of GURDAYAL SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY on 17 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2222/2018 Gurdayal Singh and another --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary and another --Respondents
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.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2222/2018
Gurdayal Singh and another --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary and another --Respondents
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
No representation for the petitioners.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
2. According to petitioners, they are cane growers who supplied sugarcane to Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Bazpur during crushing season 2017-2018.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that value of sugarcane supplied by them is Rs. 2,68,534/-. Since that amount is not paid to petitioners so far, therefore they have approached this Court seeking following relief:
“Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the direct the respondent No. 2 to make payment of the petitioner No. 1’s due amount Rs. 2,68,534/- in lieu of purchasing sugarcane by the respondent No. 2 alongwith reasonable interest.”
4. Counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Rajiv
Kumar, Incharge Chief Cane Officer, Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, stating therein that sugar factory did not purchase any sugarcane directly from cane growers and further that sugarcane alleged to have been supplied by petitioners might have been sold to cane development union concerned.
5. Since there is a factual dispute as to whether sugarcane was supplied by petitioners directly to the sugar factory or to the cane development union, therefore the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the Executive Director of concerned sugar factory.
6. If petitioners make such representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Executive Director concerned, within three months thereafter.
7. Comments of the concerned cane development union shall also be invited by the Executive Director, while taking any decision in the matter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.08.2026 Mahinder