SANJAY AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. HOME AFFAIRS LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIC/11445/2024 · 2025-01-20
Manish Kumar, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170974 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170974 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3240-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11445 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Pathak,Mohit Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties for restoring his possession in and over the shop in question detailed and described in Para 4 of the writ petition and remove their assets from the said shop in question and further not to demolish or damage the said shop or change the nature of the shop.
4. On being asked learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the Bank which is doing so and reliefs have been sought against the Bank.
5. The aforesaid proceedings as per the Bank's counsel have been initiated in pursuance to the measures referred under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 after an order passed under Section 14 thereof. It is said that the petitioner had encroached upon the secured assets, a fact which is being denied by the petitioner's counsel.
6. These are not matters amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we can not enter into disputed question of facts, especially, matters arising out of SARFAESI Act, 2002, at this stage. The petitioner may avail other remedies as far as may be permissible in law, especially as, two suits have been filed by the petitioner in respect of the same property and the Bank is a party in one of the suits, whereas, the other suit is against the private parties.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. . (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 20.1.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench