RAM AVADH VISHWAKARMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
WRIC/1296/2025 · 2025-02-17
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122453 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 122453 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9988-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1296 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Avadh Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Sahu Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. (Order on C. M. Application No. Nil/2025; Application for Amendment)
1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Pankaj Patel, Advocate on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 to 5 is taken on record. 2. The amendment application filed today by learned Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 3. This is an application for amendment of the writ petition supported with affidavit. 4. Heard. 5. The amendment application is allowed. 6. Let the petitioner make necessary amendments in the writ petition during the course of the day. (Order on Memo of Petition)
1. Heard. 2. The petitioner wants revival of his allotment of an industrial plot by the concerned opposite parties, however, counsel for the contesting opposite parties, Shri Pankaj Patel informs that the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 02.05.2018 but in view of the application of the petitioner for revival dated 08.05.2018 the same was considered and after approval of the higher authorities on 28.05.2019, the same was approved on
26.06.2019. On 24.07.2019, a letter was issued to the petitioner for deposit of an amount of Rs.5,12,010.92/- alongwith revival charges, failing which, the matter pertaining to revival of the petitioner's allotment would stand closed. This amount was not deposited, therefore, the said plot was allotted to a third party
and lease has also been executed in favour of the said third party on 21.09.2024 which has not been arrayed as opposite party. 3. On being confronted, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place before us any acceptable argument. 4. We see no reason to interfere in the matter in these circumstances. If the petitioner wants any refund and it is otherwise permissible, his application shall be considered by the concerned opposite parties and a decision be taken at the earliest say within a period of six weeks. Apart from it, no other relief can be granted. 5. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 17.2.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench