Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14779-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2303 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Pragati Infra Developers Thru.Partners Sachin Dev Verma @Sachindra Dev Verma And Akhilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Infrastructure And Industrial Development Deptt. Lko. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Sachan,Ajai Kumar Singh,Deepak Kumar Pandey,Gaurav Singh,Piyush Agnihotri,Sachin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjeev Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Shri Ajai Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. 3. The petitioner has been allotted industrial plot by the opposite parties no. 2/3 for establishing a Veneer/plywood factory. For various reasons the factory could not be setup till date, as claimed by the petitioner on account of which he could not pay the installments of the lease premium, on account of which the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 has been passed stating, inter alia, that waiver of interest is impermissible and that he should deposit the remaining amount due towards aforesaid plot in respect of which the lease deed has been executed in the petitioner's favour, by 01.01.2025. The amount to be paid was Rs.76,01,441.21. 4. This is a matter arising out of a lease deed and the adherence or violation of terms thereof. A writ petition is not the appropriate remedy even after taking into consideration the fact that the opposite parties no. 2/3 is an instrumentality of State, as, the matter would involve factual disputes requiring adducing of evidence etc. We, therefore, decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter, however, we leave it open for the petitioner to pursue other remedy as far as it may be permissible in law. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is ready to pay due amount in installment. 6. This is a matter to be considered by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. If the petitioner moves an application before the opposite party no. 2 without challenging the liability to pay the amount as mentioned in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, then, the concerned authority of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 shall consider the same at the earliest, say, within a period of four weeks and communicate its decision to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 11.3.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench