Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36147-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5964 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Negi Developers Thru. Partner Gajendra Singh Negi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra Rao Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Shivendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a developer in the name and style of Negi Developer and a dispute with regard to the consumer was subjected to proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority who has decided the dispute by means of order dated 05.10.2020 wherein the application preferred by the allottee i.e. respondent no.5 was allowed directing the petitioner to pay the entire amount given by the respondent no.5 of Rs.12,15,000/- along with interest @ MCLR + 1%. The said amount was to be paid within a period of 45 days but it seems that till date the amount has not been paid and recovery proceeding has been initiated pursuant to which a recovery certificate dated 17.05.2025 has been given to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount. The petitioner has neither assailed the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority nor has questioned the recovery proceeding and has merely approached this court seeking a direction to give the outstanding amount in installments. 3. From perusal of the writ petition and from the oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we find that no cogent reason has been ascribed for making the said prayer and bare reason stated with regard to the financial difficulty is not supported by any documentary evidence or material indicating that the petitioner is actually facing financial difficulty as neither auditing balance sheets nor the copy of the ITR has been filed which may disclose the financial distress faced by the petitioner. 4. It is for the aforesaid reason, this court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Apart from the above, we find that the petitioner has not assailed the validity of the order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority nor the recovery proceeding and therefore, there is no reason to interfere in this petition. 6. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.6.2025 *S.Chaurasia* Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench