Uttarakhand High Court
Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 340
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ravi Malimath, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.160 of 2020
Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd ... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ... Respondents
Shri D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Sri K.N. Joshi, learned deputy advocate general for State/respondent nos.1 to 5.
Km. Divya Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 96.
Dated: September 1, 2020
Coram: Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. (Oral) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2020 in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2441 of 2019 in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is in appeal before us.
2. The plea of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. With undue pressure and duress being launched by the respondent-State against the appellant to do acts, which it is not entitled to do under law, therefore, interference, by the writ Court, is called for.
3. We have heard Shri D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.N. Joshi, learned deputy advocate general for State/respondent nos.1 to 5 and Km. Divya Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to
96.
4. On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that no interference is called for. The relief sought for by the appellant, in our considered view, cannot be granted by a writ Court. It is for the Civil Court that 2 would have to entertain the dispute with regard to the agreement or contract between the parties. The consequential orders also would require to be considered by the Civil Court. However, it is for the appellant to deal with it in the manner it so chooses.
5. The further contention of the appellant is that respondents are causing undue harassment to it, therefore, the appellant may be protected for a limited period of time, to enable it to approach the appropriate Civil Court for the appropriate relief.
6. There is no objection to such a request being made by the appellant's counsel.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed off. A liberty is granted to the appellant to file a suit, or to avail such remedies as are available to it in law. For a period of one month from today, the respondents are restrained from taking any action against the appellant- writ petitioner, or to use any coercive method, in any circumstance, whatsoever, for a period of four weeks from today.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.) 01.09.2020 R.D.