M/S VIDYA TRADERS AYODHYA THRU. PROPRIETOR MRS. VIDYA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. PRIN. SECY. URBAN EMPLOY./POVERTY ALLEV.and ORS.
WRIC/13684/2020 · 2025-04-02
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141861 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141861 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18423-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13684 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Vidya Traders Ayodhya Thru. Proprietor Mrs. Vidya Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Urban Employ./Poverty Allev.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Chandra,Shreya Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupam Dwivedi,Jay Narayan Mishra,Shailendra Singh Rajawat Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the record, what comes out is that vide order dated 24.02.2020 issued by the Project Officer, District Urban Development Authority, Ayodhya the registration of petitioner's proprietorship firm, namely M/S Vidya Traders of which the petitioner Vidya Singh, wife of Rangbihari Singh, was a proprietor, was cancelled. This was done on account of a rule applicable to the District Urban Development Authority, wherein any person was working under the District Urban Development Authority or had worked earlier under it, he himself or his relative would not be entitled to be registered as contractor with the District Urban Development Authority.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that because of it the petitioner' firm cannot participate in tenders floated by other institutions/ organizations also.
4. As regards the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 as the petitioner's husband was admittedly working in District Urban Development Authority at Ayodhya from 2002 to 2004 and was working at District Urban Development Authority at Sultanpur from 2000 to 2002, even if on deputation, therefore, in view of the said rule, which has not been challenged by the petitioner, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 24.02.2020, however, with the caveat that this order will not come in way of the petitioner's firm participating in any tender floated by any other organization or institution.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench