HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1020 of 2024 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Ms. Bani Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, Shri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent State and Shri Aviral Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the RERA/ respondent no.8. 2. We have noticed that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- "(a). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and /or direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 contained Annexure No.1 as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, inequitable, except insofar the impugned order sets aside order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.3. (b). Issue a Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the permission to build dated 7.8.2015 granted to respondent no.4 by respondent no.2., Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Paavan Awasthi, Puneet Chandra, Ratnesh Chandra, Shobhit Mohan Shukla Dhan Prakash Budhraja And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru.Special Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 11 Others .....Respondent(s) or in the alternative, Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order to direct the Respondent No.1 to exercise the jurisdiction vestted in it by virtue of the Uttar Prdaesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and adjudicate the issue at hand on merits i.e. legality and validity of the Permission to0 Build dated 7.8.2015 granted to Respondent No.4 by Respondent no.2, after duly providing considering submissions of the petitioners. (c). Exempt the petitioners from filing the certified copy of the Annexures and petition may kindly be entertained of the basis o0f photographs of the same. " 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4, a preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of concealment as it has been submitted that as many as nine writ petitions were filed by the petitioners raising similar grievances and making same allegations. The details of the petitions concealed by the petitioner have been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the short counter affidavit, The short counter affidavit was served upon Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners on 12.2.2024,. More than one and half year has passed, but no reply to the said short counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners till date. The pleadings in the counter affidavit made on oath remained uncontroverted. 4. On a request made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter to be taken up urgently as she comes from outside, this Court had directed the matter to be taken up today at 2.15 p.m. without looking into the merits of the case. 5. Now when the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Paavan Awasthi has pointed out the pleadings made by the petitioners in the writ petition Writ-C No.1020 of 2024 at page 51 which are paragraphs 2 (jj) and 2 (kk) which starts from page 32 of the writ petition. Scandalous allegations have been made on oath against one of the then Judges of this Court for granting an interim order on 22.7.2020 in Writ Petition no.11278 WRIC No. 1020 of 2024 2 (M/B) of 2020 : M/s M.I.Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.4 that after interim order was granted in Writ Petition No.11278 (M/B) of 2020 on 22.7.2020, pleadings were exchanged in the said writ petition and the matter was argued for quite some time before various Co-ordinate Benches of this court on the stay vacation application moved by the respondents who are the petitioners (herein), however this Court had not vacated the interim order and the writ petition itself was withdrawn on 8.7.2025 because the petitioner therein M.I. Builders wanted to raise all grounds mentioned in the writ petition before the RERA which had issued a show cause notice challenged in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has pointed out that the present Writ Petition No.1020 (M/B) of 2024 has been filed by the sellers of the plots on which M.I.Builders are raising constructions and being sellers, they are also promoters of the apartment block proposed to be raised/ that is being raised. 8. We do not wish to enter into the merits of the controversy. We are only perturbed by the averments made on oath by the petitioners in paragraph 2 (jj) (kk) of the writ petition at page 51 and 52 of the paper book. Such scandalous observations cannot be permitted. 9. At this learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, with proper pleadings. August 28, 2025 Shukla WRIC No. 1020 of 2024 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench