Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38466 (ALL)

SMT. KAMLESH GOYAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/10106/2025 · 2025-04-07

Anish Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50377-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10106 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamlesh Goyal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankita Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs: "i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 (CEO), Noida to decide the grievances of the petitioner as per the legal notice dated 15.01.2025 within stipulated time period. ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to stop the illegal occupancy and activities going on the said premises without harming the rights of the petitioner." 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is partner of firm M/s Sagar Enterprises alongwith one Kishan Kumar, her brother. Both have equal share in the partnership firm. In the year 2001, an industrial plot was allotted in favour of the partnership firm. It is alleged that in February, 2014, Shri Kishan Kumar approached the petitioner and persuaded her to rent the property to a person not known to the petitioner. The petitioner believing her brother agreed to give the plot on rent. It is alleged that the letting out was in violation of the conditions of the lease in favour of the partnership firm. The petitioner admits to have instituted a civil suit bearing No.1179 of 2023 against her brother and the same is pending. She has given a legal notice through counsel to the Development Authority for alleged letting out of the premises in violation of conditions of the lease deed and it is submitted that, since, action has not been taken, therefore, the instant petition has been filed. 4. It appears from the facts noted above that the premises was let out with her consent and, now, in view of dispute between her and the partner, she is seeking action by the Development Authority. The other partner Kishan Kumar nor the tenant have been made party to the instant proceedings. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to examine the issue in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We leave it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be advised. 6. The petition stands disposed of. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad