Ankit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. J. C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The instant appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.3434 of 2018, Ankit Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, along with bunch of cases (“the writ petitions”), by which the writ petitions of the appellants have been dismissed by a common judgment. The challenge is also made to judgment and final order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby review applications filed by the appellants were dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.

3. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants for quashing an inquiry report dated 13.04.2018 and also seeking mandamus commanding the respondents in the writ petitions, to issue 4 appointment letters to the petitioners on the Post of Forest Guard in Rajaji National Park. The writ petitions were dismissed on

09.09.2020 along with bunch of other writ petitions of similar nature. Thereafter, the writ petitioners did the review applications in the writ petitions, which were dismissed on

29.10.2020. Both these judgments are impugned.

4. It is admitted fact that the writ petitions were decided along with WPPS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS No.3349 of 2018. In both those writ petitions, review applications were filed and both review applications were dismissed by the common order dated

29.10.2020. The orders passed in WPPS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS No.3349 of 2018 as well as the order passed on review in those writ petitions were challenged in the SPA No.359 of 2020 (the First Special Appeal). The First Special Appeal was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.09.2021. In paragraph nos.9, 10 & 11, the Coordinate Bench observed as follows:- “9. A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that there are different grounds for reviewing the order, namely, (a) if there is a discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, and which was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) if such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

10. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is not justified in observing that “since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the Review Petition deserves to be dismissed”. Since a new document, namely the final report dated 23.07.2019, was brought on record, which was not available with the appellant despite due diligence, the learned Single Judge was required to consider the said document, and if necessary, to review the order dated 09.09.2020. However, this exercise has not been carried out by the learned Single Judge.

11. For the reasons stated above, this Court set-asides the order dated 29.10.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Application (MCC No.537 of 2020), and remands the case back to the learned Single Judge with a direction to consider the final report dated 23.07.2019, and to pass the necessary order in accordance with law.” 5

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the State has concealed the material facts in the writ petitions; they had concealed the report dated 23.07.2019 of Chief Conservator of Forest , which had great bearing in the merit of the writ petitions. It is also submitted that, in fact, the review applications that were filed by the appellants were dismissed, observing that there is no error apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that, in fact, the appellants have taken various other grounds in their review applications, which were never addressed in the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petitions were decided along with WPSS No.3345 of 2018 and WPSS No.3349 of 2018 by the common judgment dated 09.09.2021. He submits that in the writ petitions different review applications were filed and they all were dismissed on 29.10.2020. He submits that since in the First Special Appeal, the matter has already been remanded back to the learned Single Judge, the instant matter also deserves to be remanded back, as per order dated 09.09.2021 passed in the First Special Appeal.

7. The First Special Appeal was against the common judgment passed in the petitions. Having considered the grounds taken in the First Special Appeal, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has remanded back two connected writ petitions for hearing to the learned Single Judge. This Court, at this stage, may not take a different view, therefore, this Court set asides the impugned common order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in review applications and remands the case back to the learned Single Judge 6 with a direction to consider the Final Report dated 23.07.2019 and to pass the necessary order, in accordance with law.

8. The Special Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 23.09.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe 2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE 5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

23.09.2025