Uttarakhand High Court

Mohammad Tahir v. State of Uttarakhand

2026:UHC:4715-DB · WPSB/94/2024

Decision date
2026-06-12
Text availability
Full text
Judges
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗

Connected provisions and cases

No further provision or case links are recorded.

Judgment text

2026:UHC:4715-DB Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or SL. No Date directions and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSB No.94 of 2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Vinod Jemini, learned Counsel i/b Mr. Ashish Kumar Jemini, learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Dy.A.G. with Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 5. 3. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent no.6. 4. Petitioner is serving as Agriculture and Soil Conservation Officer. He was posted at Roorkee and vide order dated 06.03.2024, he was attached to the Directorate of Agriculture, Dehradun. By the same order, an Enquiry Committee was also constituted to look into the complaints received against petitioner. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that this writ petition has become infructuous since after passing of order dated 06.03.2024, another order was passed in favour of petitioner. This submission is not disputed by learned Counsel for petitioner. 6. Since subsequent transfer order was passed in respect of petitioner on 29.06.2024, therefore, the relief(s) as claimed for in present writ petition do not survive. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.06.2026 Rdang