I N T H E H I GH CO U RT O F U T T A RA K H A N D
A T N A I N I T A L
H ON ’ B LE TH E CH I EF JUSTI CE M S. RI TU B A H RI
A N D
H ON ’ B LE M R. JUSTI CE RA K ESH TH A PLI YA L
W RI T PETI TI ON ( PI L) N O. 1 5 1 OF 2 0 2 2
TH
3 0 A PRI L , 2 0 2 4
Pr av een Kum ar …… Pet it ioner
Ver sus
St at e of Ut t ar ak hand & ot her s …… Respondent s
Counsel for t he pet it ioner : Mr . Shashank Saun, lear ned
counsel
Counsel for t he r espondent s : Mr . B.S. Par ihar , lear ned St anding
Counsel for t he St at e
: Mr . Adit y a Pr at ap Singh, lear ned
counsel for r espondent No. 2
: Dr . Aj ar Rab and Mr . Ank it Singh,
lear ned counsel for r espondent
Nos. 8 and 9
T h e Co u r t m a d e t h e f o l l o w i n g :
JU D GM EN T:
( p er H o n ’b l e Th e Ch i ef Ju st i ce M s. Ri t u Ba h r i )
Cou n sel f or r espon den t Nos. 8 an d 9 in f or m s
t h at t h e sam e issu e of m u ck disposal is pen din g bef or e
t h e NGT, bear in g O. A. No. 4 8 5 of 2 0 2 3 , Diw an Sin gh Vs
St at e of Ut t ar ak h an d, an d h e say s t h at t h is obj ect ion h as
been t ak en bef or e t h e NGT, an d t h er eaf t er t h ey w en t t o
t h e Su pr em e Cou r t also, an d t h e Su pr em e Cou r t
2
obser v ed t h at sin ce NGT is alr eady look in g in t o t h is
issu e, t h is m at t er w ill f in ally be ex am in ed by t h e NGT.
2 ) Keepin g in v iew t h e abov e f act , t h is w r it
pet it ion ( PI L) st an ds disposed of so as t o en able t h e NGT
t o t ak e a decision on t h e m at t er r elat in g t o m u ck
disposal pen din g bef or e it .
_______________
RI TU B A H RI , C. J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
RA K ESH TH A PL I YA L , J.
TH
Dt : 30 APRI L, 2024
Negi