Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 280 (UTT)

LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-05-12

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2017
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to provide adequate protection to the Petitioner and his staff as well as security to the liquor shop being run by the Petitioner under a valid license at Sai Hospital Road, Muknai, Police Station-Haldwani, District-Nainital and to ensure that no hindrance is caused by any miscreants or antisocial elements while running the shop by the Petitioner. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the official respondents to take legal action against the private Respondents against the nuisance being created by them.” 2. We heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 8. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General would bring to our notice that as in May, 2017, the petitioner does not have a license. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has remitted nearly Rs. 4,20,856/-. But the fact remains, however, that the petitioner does not have a license as on today. 4. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted, as sought for. 5. Accordingly, we take note of the fact that there is no license with the petitioner. The writ petition is closed.