Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/557/2026 of MATHURA DATT PANDEY AND SONS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 7 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’ ORDERS 16.07.2026 UKHC010115472026 WPMB/557/2026 Mathura Datt Pandey And Sons --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar
SL.
No
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’ ORDERS
16.07.2026
UKHC010115472026
WPMB/557/2026
Mathura Datt Pandey And Sons
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
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. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
4. Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the private respondent. Recall Application (MCC No. 02/2026)
5. The present application has been filed praying for recall of our order dated 07.07.2026, which is as follows :- “1. After the matter was argued at great length by Sri Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
3. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed accordingly.”
6. It is evident from the order that the case was argued by the counsel for the petitioner at great length and when an adverse order was going to be passed against the petitioner, he got the writ petition dismissed as not pressed.
7. Along with the present application, the petitioner has filed various documents, and on basis of the same, he is seeking to reopen the issues, which we are not inclined to undertake, in view of the fact that the writ petition was dismissed on the statement of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
8. The application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the State Legal Services Authority within a week, failing which the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority will intimate the Collector for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Rahul