Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 137344 (ALL)

NIMISHA JAIN and ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.THROUGH ELECTION COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW and ANR.

WRIC/6478/2020 · 2025-04-25

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23937-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6478 of 2020 Petitioner :- Nimisha Jain And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Election Commissioner Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar,Kazim Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the U.P. Election Commission. 2. This writ petition had been filed in 2020 seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to immediately release the payment of Rs.33,16,403.00 (Rs. Thirty Three Lacs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Three Only) as approved by the enquiry committee in favour of M/s Kushagra Enterprises with interest of 18% from the date of submission of bill dated 29.01.2016. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation dated 07.01.2020 given by petitioner no. 2 for releasing of the payment of Rs.33,16,403.00 (Rs. Thirty Three Lacs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Three Only) as approved by the enquiry committee in favour of M/s Kushagra Enterprises." 3. Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the U.P. Election Commission says that earlier the bills of the petitioners could not be processed on account of some F.I.R. having been lodged in the context of illegalities in preparation of voter list, wherein, some of the petitioners' employee were also involved, a fact which is refuted by the petitioners' counsel who says that subsequently on inquiry it was found that petitioner was not involved. 4. Be that as it may, Shri Chaudhary says that the Commission seeks a month's time to finalize the matter and take a decision regarding the bills raised by the petitioners for payment. 5. We dispose of this writ petition in view of what has been discussed hereinabove with a direction to the Election Commissioner, U.P. Election Commission to ensure that a decision is taken in the matter within a period of six weeks from today. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 25.4.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench