HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35219 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. Record reflects that initially M/s Shri Krishna International applied for land in Industrial Area, Firozabad by moving an application dated 26.12.2003, in pursuance thereof the respondent no. 2 i.e. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority (in short 'UPSIDA') had made the allotment over the Plot No. B-5, B-6, in Industrial Area, Firozabad, ad- measuring area 6400 square meters, along with the demand of premium. It also reveals from the record that initially M/s Shri Krishna International was a partnership firm consisting of Nirdosh Agarwal and Rajeev Agarwal. On account of some dispute between the partners of the firm, the partnership was separated w.e.f. 30.04.2011. Later on, it is claimed that M/s Shri Krishna International came into the sole control of Nirdosh Agarwal. 3. Sri S.S. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel submits that Rajeev Agarwal, who is retiring partner of the firm w.e.f. 01.04.2012, and he has nothing to do with the firm and, consequently, the sole owner of the firm is Nirdosh Agarwal and, on this factual situation, an application has been sent to the UPSIDA requesting to delete the name of Sri Rajeev Agarwal as partner of the firm from the records. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Karshit Nigam, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambrish Shukla, C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra M/S R.K. Overseas .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on this backdrop, submits that the petitioner-firm has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (in short 'MoU') on 08.02.2023 at Lucknow with the Hon'ble Governor of U.P., under which the petitioner has to invest Rs. 50 Crores. In the MoU it is also mentioned that 70 persons to be employed under the project. He further submits that till date, in spite of repeated request, the respondent authorities have not registered the lease deed. Such situation has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel for UPSIDA placed a detailed instructions, which is taken on record, and submits that in the instant proceedings various correspondence has been made by the authorities raising certain objections, but till date the objections so raised by the UPSIDA have not been rectified by the petitioner firm and it has not furnished surrender deed executed by the erstwhile partner-Rajeev Agarwal, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He fairly submitted that in case the petitioner rectifies the discrepancies highlighted by the UPSIDA, certainly the competent authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioner. 6. Sri S.S. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel submits that some breathing time may be accorded to the petitioner so that surrender deed may be submitted to the Authority, and, if the surrender deed executed by erstwhile partner is furnished by the petitioner to the Authority concerned, the Authority may be directed to execute the lease dead and to get it registered in favour of the petitioner. 7. Considering the factual situation, we find that till date the petitioner does not submit the surrender deed, which is duly executed by the earlier partner, the Authority could not execute the lease deed in the name of the petitioner. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration or inviting counter affidavit, with the consent of the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 2 to provide the objection to the petitioner within three weeks from today. In response to the objection, the WRIC No. 35219 of 2025 2 petitioner may submit a detailed response at the earliest possible. We expect that on such response being filed by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. October 14, 2025 Pkb/ WRIC No. 35219 of 2025 3 ( Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad