SUNIL KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 55 of 2026
28 October, 2026
Sunil Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. Parikshit Saini,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent nos. 1: Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate
General, Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh
and Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned
Additional Advocate General, Mr. Puran
Singh Bisht, learned Chief Standing
Counsel, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr.
Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel and Mr. Akshit Gururani,
learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Lalit Miglani and Mr. Sandeep
Kohari, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Petitioner is an elected corporator (Ward Member)
in Municipal Corporation, Haridwar. By means of this
writ petition, he has sought the following reliefs:-
“i) To issue a writ, Order, or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned letters dated 18.12.2025
and 20.12.2025 (Annexure No. 1) to this Writ petition.
ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed any
further in respect of the tender process pertaining to the
operation and maintenance of Maa Mansadevi Ropeway at
Haridwar.”
1
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
2. According to petitioner, a ropeway was constructed
in Public Private Partnership Model for connecting Maa
Mansa Devi Temple, which is situate on top of a hill, to
Haridwar town and M/s Usha Breco Ltd. was given
lease to operate and maintain the said ropeway for a
period of 30 years by concession agreement dated
15.05.1974.
3. It is further stated that after expiry of term of the
lease, M/s Usha Breco Ltd. continued to operate the
ropeway without any formal tender process and this
Court in a Public Interest Litigation directed that formal
tender process should be initiated for operation and
maintenance of the ropeway and further that term of
the contract cannot be extended without inviting offer
from other interested persons.
4. It is stated that a Request for Proposal (RFP) was
invited by Municipal Corporation, Haridwar for
shortlisting of companies, for maintaining and operating
the ropeway in the year 2024 and thereafter again in
the year 2025.
5. Petitioner has challenged letter dated 18.12.2025,
issued by Municipal Commissioner, Haridwar to
Secretary, Urban Development Department, in which it
is mentioned that approximately 20 lakh pilgrims use
Mansa Devi Ropeway at Haridwar annually, and the
concessionaire charges a fare of Rs. 199/- per person,
thus a total annual revenue of Rs. 39,80,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Crore Eighty Lakh Only) is
generated; Mansa Devi Ropeway is operational for the
past 40 years and since the work of operation and
2
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
maintenance of ropeway is of specialised nature and
human safety is paramount, therefore it would be
appropriate if tender conditions (RFP) for operation and
maintenance of the ropeway are prepared by
Uttarakhand Public Private Partnership (PPP) Cell, only
after examining technical aspects.
6. Another letter which is impugned was issued by
Municipal Commissioner on 20.12.2025 (Annexure-1),
whereby Secretary, Urban Development Department
was informed that Board of Municipal Corporation,
Haridwar has passed a resolution that companies which
have experience of operating minimum two ropeways,
including minimum 10 years experience of operating
similar technology ropeway, alone should be allowed to
participate in the bidding process. Municipal
Commissioner mentioned in that letter that the
resolution passed by the Board may result in
eliminating competition, which may affect the financial
interest of the Municipal Corporation, and Secretary,
Urban Development, was requested to examine the
resolution passed by the Board and have the conditions
of the RFP modulated keeping in mind the points
mentioned in the Committee’s report.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
submit that it is a proxy litigation at the behest of M/s
Usha Breco Ltd. It is contended that M/s Usha Breco
Ltd. earlier filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1142 of 2025
seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) To issue a writ, Order, or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned letters dated 18.12.2025
3
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
(Annexure No. 1) and 20.12.2025 (Annexure No. 2), which
are arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India;
ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent No.4 not to proceed
any further in respect of the tender process pertains to the
operation and maintenance of Maa Mansadevi Ropeway.
iii) To issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing a high level enquiry/investigation to
be initiated to inquire the "unavoidable circumstances" in
which the tender dated 08.09.2025 was cancelled and
further the facts and circumstances leading to handing
over of RFP formulation by Respondent No. 2/3 to
respondent No.4 and to further pass orders for time bound
inquiry/investigation in the matter.”
8. Learned counsel for respondents contend that
since M/s Usha Breco Ltd. was unable to get interim
relief in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1142 of 2025,
therefore, instant writ petition was filed through a
corporator seeking identical reliefs. It is thus contended
that this amounts to abuse of process of law and a
Corporator in the Municipal Corporation has no business
to challenge the letters whereby Municipal
Commissioner requested the State Government to
modulate the request for proposal having due regard to
human safety as well as financial interest of the
Municipal Corporation.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, submits
that the letters issued by Municipal Corporation are
contrary to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Policy,
as revised in 2019. We, however, do not find any
substance in the said contention. Clause 4.1.1 of the
4
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
said policy merely provides that administrative
department, upon completing Stage 1 activities
mentioned in Section 2 of the policy, will send the
proposal to PPP Cell for initial comments and
discussion, and based on the discussion, a preliminary
project report will be drafted.
10. In his letter dated 18.12.2025, Municipal
Commissioner requested the State Government to have
the tender conditions (RFP) for operation and
maintenance of Mansa Devi ropeway formulated by
Uttarakhand Public Private Partnership (PPP) Cell, after
examining technical aspects. The letter therefore does
not in any manner impinge upon the PPP policy of the
State.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits
that the letters issued by Municipal Commissioner are
in teeth of the resolution passed by Municipal Board on
31.07.2025. He submits that the Board had resolved
that (i) companies having experience of operating
minimum two ropeways, including experience of 10
years in operating a ropeway of same technology alone
would be entitled to participate in the tender process,
(ii) companies, which do not have experience of
operating similar ropeways should not be permitted to
participate in the tender process and (iii) the ropeway
should be technically examined by experts from IIT,
Roorkee at regular intervals. Thus, he submits that the
decisions taken by the Board of Municipal Corporation
were diluted by the Municipal Commissioner by issuing
impugned letters.
5
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
12. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that
eligibility conditions were tailor made for M/s Usha
Breco Limited (the existing operator) in the Board
resolution dated 31.07.2025, as it was operating Mansa
Devi Ropeway for last more than 40 years and the
Municipal Commissioner rightly apprised the State
Government that conditions mentioned in board
resolution may adversely affect the revenue interest of
the Municipal Corporation and the final decision in the
matter has to be taken by the State Government.
13. We find substance in the contention raised made
by learned State counsel.
14. The decision taken by the Board at Agenda Item
No. 77 (1) has the effect of eliminating competition and
such condition, if enforced, would create a monopoly in
favour of the existing operator, as he is operating the
ropeway for the last more than four decades.
15. Ropeway systems use different technological
variables. There may be differences in supporting
infrastructure, number of cables used, type of grip
mechanism and the operational direction of movement.
Thus the existing operator will have an edge over other
persons, due to his long experience of operating the
same ropeway, but that in itself is not sufficient to
create monopoly in his favour.
16. Uttarakhand Legislature has enacted Uttarakhand
Ropeways Act, 2014 (Act No. 02 of 2015). It is a
comprehensive legislation dealing with various aspects,
including inspection, safety and determination of tariff.
6
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
17. We find some substance in the contention raised
by learned State Counsel that board resolution dated
31.07.2025 was passed for extraneous reasons. Since
the field is covered by a State legislation, therefore
whether Municipal Corporation had the authority to
pass such resolution is, also debatable. Therefore,
challenge to the letters issued by Municipal
Commissioner on the touchstone of said board
resolution deserves to be rejected.
18. The objection raised by respondents regarding
locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the
interdepartmental communications, issued by Municipal
Commissioner to the State Government cannot be
brushed aside lightly. There is nothing objectionable in
the impugned letters, which would have given rise to a
cause of action for maintaining this writ petition. For
challenging an order, petitioner has to show some
illegality therein, however learned counsel for petitioner
failed to demonstrate that there is any illegality in the
impugned letters.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents are,
therefore, right in submitting that this is a proxy
litigation filed at the behest of M/s Usha Breco Ltd. only
for obtaining interim order, to stall the tender process
for ensuring that existing operator (M/s Usha Breco
Ltd.) operates the ropeway to Maa Mansa Devi Temple
unhindered.
20. As we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned communications, therefore, there is hardly
any scope for interference in the matter.
7
UKHC010012542026
2026:UHC:9731-DB
21. It is not in dispute that Municipal Corporation
manages the land and other property of the State,
however ownership over such property vests in the
State. The ropeway in question is therefore owned by
the State and it can utilize the same in the interest of
the State and its people.
22. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the rival bidder (M/s Damodar Ropeways
and Infra Ltd.) submits that his client is ready to offer
Rs. 20 crores annually for operation and maintenance
of Maa Mansa Devi Ropeway. The State Government
may consider appropriately fixing reserve price, while
formulating conditions of request for proposal/notice
inviting tender.
23. Since the field is covered by the Uttarakhand
Ropeways Act, 2014, therefore, we dispose of the writ
petition with a direction to the State Government to
invoke its powers under Uttarakhand Ropeways Act,
2014 for ensuring safety of the people and also for
safeguarding the revenue interest of the State.
Appropriate decision shall be taken by the State
Government within three months from today.
__________________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 28.10.2026
Navin
MAHINDER
SINGH
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92
d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D30
5B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.10.30 20:53:05 +05'30'
8