Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28559 (ALL)

M/S. PURVANCHAL RISE MILL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/7909/2025 · 2025-04-16

Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56390-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7909 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S. Purvanchal Rise Mill Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Bhushan,Alpana Dwivedi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. The list has been revised. 2. Shri Awdesh Kumar Yadav (AoR No. 1651/2012) states that he has filed a Vakalatnama on 04.04.2025 in the Registry but the same is not on record. 3. Office is directed to trace out the same and place on record. 4. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to make payment raised by petitioner firm i.e. 35,02,782/- in the bank account of petitioner's firm." 5. The array of the parties in the writ petition is as under:- 1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Food & Supply Department), U.P. at Lucknow. 2. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited, Lucknow. 3. Regional Manager PCF, Basti Division Basti. 4. District Manager PCF, Sant Kabir Nagar. 6. When the matter was listed on 19.03.2025, the following order was passed:- " Put up as fresh after a week to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court as regards the maintainability of this writ petition which seeks a mandamus against a cooperative society, respondent No. 2 and its officers, respondent Nos. 3 and 4." 7. Today, repeatedly questions were put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to demonstrate maintainability of the writ petition but he merely seeks an adjournment. 8. Prima facie, we find that the respondent No. 2 is a cooperative federation, registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Nowhere it has been demonstrated that the respondent No. 2 have the status of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India entitling the petitioner to maintain a petition seeking the relief of mandamus. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Aditya Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad