The appointment of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari as the Acting Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court with effect from October 27 has been notified by the Central government.

The Union Ministry of Law and Justice on October 25 issued a notification to this effect.

The charge was taken by the Justice Tiwari upon the retirement of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi who demitted office on October 26.

As per the notification,in exercise of the power conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President appoints, Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 27.10.2023 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court on 26.10.2023.

In year 1990,Justice Tiwari enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and started practicing law at the Allahabad High Court. He later shifted to Nainital upon the creation of the Uttarakhand High Court in 2000.

In the year 2009, he was designated a Senior Advocate and served as the President of the High Court Bar Association in Nainital in 2008 and acted as special counsel for the State Government in various cases.

He was appointed judge of the Uttarakhand High Court on May 19, 2017

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an order passed by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, saying caste status is acquired by birth and not by marriage.

A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari passed this order while hearing a petition filed by one Poonam.

By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Office Memo dated 25.08.2022 passed by Secretary, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, whereby petitioner’s claim for appointment on the post of Dental Hygienist was rejected.

The petitioner is educationally qualified for appointment as dental hygienist. Respondent no 2 invited applications by issuing an advertisement dated 06.10.2021 for 40 posts of dental hygienist.

The petitioner applied for a post reserved for Other Backward Classes and submitted her OBC certificate. The petitioner stood 14th in order of merit against 40 vacancies, however, only 13 candidates were recommended for appointment. The petitioner was not recommended for appointment on the ground that the validity period of her OBC certificate had expired three days before publication of advertisement.

The petitioner filed a writ petition. The Court, by relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 26.07.2022 by holding that petitioner is a member of the Other Backward Classes, and has been issued fresh OBC certificate on 12.01.2022, therefore, the Competent Authority shall re-consider petitioner’s claim in the light of fresh OBC certificate issued to her.

The petitioner served the aforesaid judgment upon respondent no 2 and filed an affidavit, as per direction in the judgment. Her claim for appointment has again been rejected by respondent no 2 vide order dated 25.08.2022. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached the Court.

The Court said two issues require consideration for determining petitioner’s eligibility, namely, (i) whether she belongs to Other Backward Classes; (ii) whether she belongs to creamy layer or not.

The Court noted that the question whether she comes within creamy layer has been decided against her on the ground that petitioner’s marriage was solemnized on 20.11.2022 at Dehradun. However, she obtained OBC certificate by mentioning address and income of her father and not of her husband. Reliance has been placed upon Government Order dated 02.04.2013 for recording adverse findings against petitioner that she suppressed information regarding marriage in her application made to the Competent Authority for issuance of OBC certificate.

Reliance upon Government Order dated 02.04.2013, for rejecting petitioner’s claim, appears to be misplaced. The caste status of the petitioner’s parents is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Uttarakhand. Caste status is acquired by birth and not by marriage. Thus, a girl, who does not belong to Other Backward Classes, will not get the benefit of reservation available to Other Backward Classes merely by her marriage to a person belonging to OBC.

The Court further noted the Competent Authority has issued a certificate stating that petitioner belongs to Other Backward Classes. In the said certificate, it is further certified that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy layer. The OBC certificate issued by Tehsildar in favour of petitioner on 12.01.2022 is neither cancelled nor rescinded, therefore, it is not open to the Selecting Body to sit in judgment over the certificate issued by the Competent Authority.

Petitioner is entitled to all benefits available to members of OBCs so long as her OBC certificate survives. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner’s husband belongs to the creamy layer. There is no discussion regarding income of petitioner’s husband in the impugned order, yet her claim for appointment is rejected.

Even otherwise, there is no Statute or Government Order, providing that a girl belonging to OBC category has to obtain OBC certificate on the basis of income of her husband immediately after her marriage. Respondent no 2 has rejected petitioner’s claim for appointment based on value judgment and not based on any provision of law.

The Court observed the OBC certificate issued in favour of petitioner by Competent Authority cannot be set at naught, merely because petitioner’s action does not confirm to second respondent’s notions of socially accepted norms. In the absence of express provision in law providing that, after marriage, a girl has to obtain OBC certificate, based on income of her husband and not her father, petitioner’s conduct cannot be said to be illegal so as to render her caste certificate null and void.

The reasoning given by the Secretary of the Selecting Body for rejecting petitioner’s claim for appointment is unsustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

“For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 is quashed. Respondent no 2 is directed to recommend the petitioner’s name for appointment to the Competent Authority, within two weeks, who shall pass appropriate order, as per law, within next two weeks,” the Court ordered.

The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed making a grievance with regard to the conduct of the private respondents, who are fair price shop dealers, in relation to the diversion of food grains, particularly during the pandemic.

The petitioners made complaints against the fair price shop dealers, who are impleaded as respondents. Since no concrete action was taken, the petition was preferred by the petitioners in January, 2021.    

During the pendency of the petition, the respondent authorities have taken action against these private respondents.
Having heard  Counsels, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari is of the view that the petitioners should have been heard, since it is on their complaints that actions have been initiated against the private respondents, who are fair price shop dealers. 

The High Court, therefore, directs that wherever appeals are pending, the petitioners shall also be noticed and allowed to participate in the proceedings. They may produce relevant documents and submissions in support of their complaints. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeals by passing reasoned orders. The appellate decisions shall be circulated to the petitioners as well.   

So far as the dealership of respondents which has been restored by the Commissioner is concerned, since the petitioners have not been heard, the High Court  inclined to allow the Petitions. The High Court, accordingly, allowed the said petition and set aside the order dated 22.8.2022 passed by the Commissioner in Appeal. The said appeals are remanded back to the Commissioner, who shall hear the same afresh, while granting an opportunity of representation to the petitioners as well, as aforesaid. 

It is clarified by the High Court that it has not examined either the complaints of the petitioners or the appellate order passed by the Commissioner on merits and further directed that in cases where inquiries are still in progress, the same shall be concluded within the next three months and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits in each case.

The Uttarakhand High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed raising a grievance with regard to the continuation in office of Secretary, Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly.

The case of the petitioner is that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly had got an inquiry conducted in the matter of appointment of employees and officers in the Legislative Assembly and, on the basis of the report, it was found that a large number of persons have been illegally appointed dehors of the rules.  
Hundreds of other employees have been terminated on the basis of the said report. Even the appointment of  Secretary, Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly   was found to be completely illegal. However, no action has been taken to remove him from service till date.  

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari issued notice to the respondents.
It is pertinent to note that the High Court while observing that petitioner has impleaded a host of parties as respondents, which are completely irrelevant and have no concern with the issue raised by the petitioner , deleted  some of the Parties  from the array of the respondents. and directed  the petitioner to file an amended memo of parties.

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction  to the respondents authorities regarding illegal acts for losing the huge revenue of the State by granting the E-tender  to two firms.

The Petitioner further seeks direction to the Higher Authorities to make enquiry by the State Investigation Team on respondents.

According to the petitioner, pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, issued by Director, Technical Education, five bids were submitted, however, the authorities illegally rejected the bid of lowest bidder and the second lowest bidder. This, according to petitioner, is serious irregularity, resulting in loss to public exchequer,    therefore, an enquiry be ordered into the matter and the responsible officer be punished. However, the ground on which bid of some of the bidders were rejected is not known.

While considering the PIL , the Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice  Alok Kumar Verma observed that  normally, financial bid of only such bidders are opened, whose bids are found to be technically responsive. The conditions mentioned in the tender notice / tender document are also not known, therefore, the question whether bids were rightly rejected or not, cannot be looked at.

Further the Court noted that  this is second petition for the same relief, as earlier Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court, vide order dated 27.10.2021, however, liberty to file fresh petition was not granted to petitioner.

The Counsel for petitioner requested leave to file a fresh petition, however, such leave was declined by the High Court. 

Since this is a second petition for the same cause of action, therefore, in the absence of liberty granted to petitioner in the earlier petition, the second petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed by the High Court.

The Uttarakhand High Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondents to establish old age homes in all districts of the state.

The PIL has been filed by a NGO.

The petitioner places reliance on the earlier decision of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No 52 of 2013, decided on June 12, 2018.

Reliance is placed on the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.  

In light of above, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari directed the Secretary, Social Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, to file a status report within two weeks disclosing as to what steps have been taken for establishment of the old age homes in all districts of the state.

The Court has listed the matter on December 7, 2022 for further hearing.

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a street vendor / tehbazari holder has no right to permanently occupy any public land, much less a public street, and thereby cause obstruction in the free movement of people or traffic.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the the petitioner who is aggrieved by the encroachment which has taken place on the main road at Tehsil Mod to Bansfodan Police Chowki in Kashipur city.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said road is between 25-40 feet in width at different places. Due to encroachment of the said road on either side by the vendors, the width of the road available for traffic has shrunk to about 10 feet. This is leading to choking and congestion in the area. The grievance is also with regard to lack of convenience and facilities. The unauthorized markets and encroachment is leading to collection of garbage in the area which is not being cleared.

Kaushal Sah Jagati, the counsel for the petitioner, stated that the order dated 30.08.2022 has not been complied with till date.

Davesh Bishnoi, the counsel for Nagar Nigam, apprised the Court that he has filed the compliance report in the Registry, and the Nagar Nigam is keeping the area clean of garbage. Further status reports will be filed by Nagar Nigam before the next date.

The Division Bench clarified that the non-compliance of our order dated 30.08.2022 shall be viewed strictly and appropriate action for contempt of court will be initiated against the concerned authorities for non-compliance of the said order.

The matter is listed on 02.11.2022 for further hearing.

It is pertinent to note that the High Court directed the SDM concerned to make a site visit and demarcate the boundaries beyond which no encroachment should take place along with road aforesaid. The boundaries should be marked on the road in ‘yellow’ paint. The SHO of the local police station shall ensure that no encroachment takes place beyond the boundaries marked. The SDM shall ensure that the width of the road is maintained to at least 20 feet so as to allow the movement of traffic to and fro simultaneously. The respondents should also ensure that the garbage collected in the marked area is regularly collected and disposed of on a daily basis.

The Uttarakhand High Court recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to re-align the road which has to be constructed from Kandakhanikhal (Village Kandakhani) to Village Judd, so the Village Juyalgaon could be connected which is in between the two points of the link Road to be constructed or otherwise connect the link road to Village Juyalgaon through proper construction of road.

The PIL has been filed by resident of Village Juyalgaon, Pauri Garhwal. According to him, a road is proposed to be constructed between Village Kandakhanikhal to Village Judd. Petitioner wants that road to pass through his village, i.e. Juyalgaon.

According to the Petitioner, in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 21.01.2022, a resolution was passed that the said road would pass through Juyalgaon, however, the alignment was subsequently changed.

While considering the Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice R.C. Khulbe held that since alignment of road, that too in a hill area has to be decided by experts, taking into account various aspects, therefore, any interference with the alignment of road by this Court, would not be proper.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no connectivity to residents of Juyalgaon, therefore, a connecting road be constructed between petitioner’s village and the existing road between Kandakhanikhal-Devikhet.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court disposed of the Petition by permitting petitioner to make a representation to Secretary, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand.

“If petitioner makes such representation regarding connecting road, within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Secretary, Public Works Department, after due consultation with Secretary, Finance, Government of Uttarakhand, as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order”, the order reads.

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the Secretary of Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority to ensure no illegal construction is raised within the premises of the Mangla Devi Inter College, Karanpur, Dehradun.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari  and Justice  Alok Kumar Verma heard a Public Interest Litigation alleging that, anti-social elements are constructing shops in a place earmarked as a playground for students of an inter college, in collusion with the management of the college.,

On June 17, Rahul Consul, Counsel for the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) , on instructions, stated that the construction being raised is on a playground; the illegal construction was raised during the lockdown period and, consequently, the respondents were unaware thereof; action has been taken to stop further construction; the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun has also been requested to provide protection to seal the premises; and necessary steps would be taken shortly to have the premises sealed, and thereby ensure that no further construction is resorted to.

Later on June 24, Rahul informed the Court that the legal construction being raised has been sealed in order to prevent any further construction being raised thereupon. “In the meantime, the Secretary, Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority being the respondent no.5 shall ensure that no illegal construction is raised within the premises of the Mangla Devi Inter College, Karanpur, Dehradun,” the order reads.

The Bench has posted the matter in the week commencing November 22.

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the District Magistrate of Udham Singh Nagar to pass fresh orders in six months regarding the eligibility of petitioners for the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari.

Petitioners Rajesh Kumar and others had challenged the order dated August 24, 2016 passed by the District Magistrate of Udham Singh Nagar. By the said order, the application made by the petitioners, declaring them eligible for the benefits available to Rajya Andolankari, had been rejected.

The reason assigned for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners was that there was no entry regarding the participation of the petitioners in Uttarakhand Andolan in the records available with Local Intelligence Bureau, Kichha.

Kishore Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners, referred to the letter issued by the Deputy Collector of Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Along with the said letter, a list has been enclosed, in which names of the petitioners are mentioned at Serial Nos 52, 53 and 54, respectively.

Against the names of the petitioners, there is a reference to some report submitted by the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU), although the year of reports is different in case of all the petitioners.

The Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in view of stipulation made in the list regarding the LIU report in respect of the petitioners, the reason assigned for rejecting their claim does not appear to be justified.

A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari on May 24, 2021 directed the Deputy Advocate General to get necessary instructions in the matter, particularly, as regard the LIU report.

On Friday, the Additional CSC had apprised the Court that despite the letter issued to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, no instructions have been received so far.

The Court held that since the application made by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that there is no entry regarding participation of the petitioners in Uttarakhand Andolan; therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the District Magistrate in the light of document contained in the petition.

Read Also: Bombay HC asks municipal corporations to make, supply masks for people with hearing disability

“The order dated August 24, 2016 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of petitioners, in accordance with the law, as early as possible; but, not later than six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order,” the order read.