HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11360 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.2 & 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "(i) to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 to implement the order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Revision No. 581/77-4-24/123Appeal/23, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, within a reasonable fixed period of time as determined by this Hon'ble Court;" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed in Writ-C No. 10002 of 2025, 'Smt. Manisha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others', Division Bench of this Court on 13.10.2025 wherein the parties were same and the direction prayed for in the writ petition was the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court Writ-C No. 10002 of 2025, 'Smt. Manisha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others', which is quoted hereinbelow:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Upadhyay Smt. Manisha Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.Of Infrastructure And Industrial Development Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) "1. Heard Shri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned learned, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers : "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the demand dated 22.08.2025 contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to comply with the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 in its true letter and spirit; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to inspect the documents of the petitioner, conduct a spot inspection, and thereafter decide the representations of the petitioner for grant of zero period; (d) Pass any such other order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that prayer no.(a) has already been granted in such terms by the respondents, as they have cancelled the order dated 22.08.2025. However, with regard to prayer nos.(b) and (c) in the relief clause, which relate to a direction being issued to respondent No.2 to comply with the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 and to inspect the documents of the petitioner and conduct a spot inspection and thereafter decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of zero period, the petitioner wishes to press these prayers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out paragraph 14 onwards of the revisional order. He states that respondent No.1, while disposing of the revision, has observed in paragraph 18 that the order cancelling the allotment of the petitioner dated 08.10.2021 has been set aside. It has further been observed by the revisional authority that the allotment having been restored, a fresh order needs to be passed with regard to the WRIC No. 11360 of 2025 2 declaration of the period from the date of cancellation till the date of the passing of the revisional order as zero period, not be counted for the purpose of development of the BPO project. Moreover, a spot inspection needs to be made by respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 has disputed certain observations made in the revisional order passed by the respondent No.1, but we are not concerned with the dispute because respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not challenged the revisional order. It has become final between the parties. Therefore, we deem it appropriate that a writ be issued as prayed for in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to comply with the observations made in paragraph 18 of the revisional order and make reassessment and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner pending before them within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. " 5. Sri Sachin Upadhyay, Advocate, on the basis of instructions, says that although this writ petition is similar to Writ-C No. 10002 of 2025, Greater NOIDA is in the process of filing a writ petition challenging the Revisional Order. 6. Be that as it may, since no writ petition has been filed challenging the Revisional Order, till date, and there is no interim order against the Revisional Order, the respondents no.2 & 3 may comply with such Revisional Order passed by the State Government, subject of cost to any decision of the writ petition proposed to be filed against such Revisional Order. 7. Consequently, we disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as Writ-C No. 10002 of 2025. December 1, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 11360 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench