HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5452 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing cousnel. Sri Sachin Upadhyay learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the revision said to have been filed by the petitioner before it. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey learned Standing counsel for the State respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner does not have the locus standi either to file the revision or this petition seeking expeditious disposal of the alleged revision said to have been filed before the respondent no.1. It has also been pointed out that initially the petitioner had taken recourse to get his civil rights adjudicated by filing a suit for permanent injunction. He had also preferred a writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad, however, the same came to be dismissed. In the aforesaid circumstances, where he could not get a relief directly from approaching the court of law, and now by filing a revision and indirectly seeking to achieve the same objective/which was denied hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikey Dubey, Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Upadhyay Smt. Rashmi Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Indu. Development Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) dismissed. In response to the aforesaid submissions, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondent no.3 is the lessee in possession of the property in question. She had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner. One of the conditions in the agreement was that she would seek approval for transfer from the respondent no.2 and thereafter would execute the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. It is urged that in the aforesaid backdrop the petitioner had initially filed a suit for injunction as it was apprehended that the respondent no.3 was in the process of creating third party rights. It is also stated that in the given backdrop the petitioner had filed the writ petition, before the Division Bench of this Court however, the same came to be dismissed but thereafter the petitioner had moved an application for withdrawing the civil suit and also moved an application before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad relating to the recall of the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Writ C no.28456 of 2024. It is urged that the petitioner has candidly disclosed all facts and in the given circumstances it cannot be said that this petition suffers from the vice of the concealment or that the petitioner does not have the locus as she has already filed a revision before the respondent no.1 along with an application for interim relief upon which the respondent is required to consider the application as well as the revision expeditiously and there can be no reason why the consideration can be barred even though the authority is well within its right to take a view as per law. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition deserves to be considered and allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to certain orders passed in similar matters by this Court as well as coordinate Benches of this Court, Having considered the aforesaid submissions, at the outset, it may be noticed that the petitioner has already moved an application for recall of the order dated 29.08.2024 which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad. There is no reason why the instant petition can be filed before this Court because the prayer contained in the said petition is A227 No. 5452 of 2025 2 almost identical to what was sought in the petition filed before the Court at Allahabad. Once this position is not disputed that the petition at Allahabad is pending, (even though for a recall), hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue her remedy with her pending petition at Allahabad. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. September 11, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 5452 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench