Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 137437 (ALL)

MOHAN PAINTS PVT. LTD. THRU. MANAGING DIRECTOR KAUSHAL KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF INFRASTRUCTURE/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/4134/2025 · 2025-04-30

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24826-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4134 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohan Paints Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Kaushal Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Infrastructure/Industrial Development And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Singh,Shashank Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Tewari Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Mr. Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and Mr. Vineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner-Company has challenged a show cause notice dated 15.04.2025 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition pointing out several lapses/deficiencies on its part mainly with regard to non-payment of the due amount in spite of sufficient notice and non-compliance of other obligations such as taking possession of land and getting the building plan approved, etc. 3. The contention of petitioner's counsel is that the benefit of zero period has not been provided to the petitioner and in this context he tried to refer to certain photographs to drive home the point that the roads alleged to have been constructed in the impugned notice are, in fact, not constructed. 4. Counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that the notice impugned is merely a show cause notice and not a decision, therefore, this Court should not entertain this petition; rather the petitioner should respond to the notice and whatever explanation is offered that would be considered as per law and a decision shall be taken only thereafter. 5. Looking into the entire scenario as it is a contractual matter and on being asked learned counsel for the petitioner could not place before us the letter dated 18.10.2024 by which it was asked to deposit certain amounts and, as, the question as to whether the road has been constructed or not is factual issue which cannot be seen in the writ petition, especially in a matter arising out of a contract, that too, when only a show cause notice has been issued. Even otherwise, today is the last date for submission of such response, the petitioner should respond to the same within three days' time from today whereupon the concerned opposite party shall consider the same, get the facts verified and take decision in the matter thereafter as per law. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Santosh/- Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench