Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44822 (ALL)

UDHAM SINGH AND 10 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/43677/2013 · 2025-07-27

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43677 of 2013 Petitioner :- Udham Singh And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. List revised. 2. None appears on behalf of the petitioners to press this writ petition. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:- "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 28.10.1997 passed by the respondent no.2 as the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the resolution dated 28.10.1997 passed in 26th Board's meeting of respondent no.3. iii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to make payment of compensation without any discrimination to the petitioners as to be paid to the pustaini kastkar on the ground of parity." 4. Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the Noida Authority submits that he had filed a detailed counter affidavit on 01.11.2013 with the specific objection in paragraph no.4 that this writ petition is not maintainable as the whole genesis of claim in this writ petition has been made on the Board Resolution dated 28.10.1997, which was passed by the Greater Noida Authority not by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. 5. Considering the categorical stand taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida Authority and the fact that no effort has been made by the petitioners to rectify the said discrepancy, it appears that either the petitioners have lost interest or this writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed has having become infructuous by efflux of time. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 8. As the original counter affidavit dated 01.11.2013 is not on record, office is directed to trace out the same and place on record. Photo copy of the said counter affidavit provided by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for contesting respondents is taken on record. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar,J) (M. C. Tripathi,J) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad