Pradeep Kumar Ghildiyal v. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 12, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 2
Judgment
--Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anil K. Bisht and Ms. Shumayla Zafri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent authority which is an association of the Ministerial Staff working in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner claims himself to be the Member of the aforesaid Association who has been expelled by the respondent/association.
On a bare perusal of the cause title of the writ petition, it appears that petitioner is the president of some Ministerial Officers Association. No document has been annexed by the petitioner to show that it has any concern with the State Government. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner/association is not an instrumentality of the “State” or State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 1
In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.