Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93882 (ALL)

VIVEK KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/31337/2025 · 2025-09-09

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31337 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following main relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the board resolution dated 12.07.2021 passed by Zila Panchayat Agra, whereby, constituted committee known as Nirman Karya Samiti and other samities in illegal manner without followed in the procedure prescribed Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Samitiyon Ka Nirman) Niyamavali, 1997 and thereafter floated tenders which is bar under Section 117(3) of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to constitute the requisite committee known as Nirman Karya Samiti and other samities which is to be constituted under Section 64 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 with following the procedure Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Samitiyon Ka Nirman) Niyamavali, 1997." 3. The Stamp Reporter has reported the delay of 1424 days in filing the present petition. 4. The inordinate delay of 1424 days has not been explained by the petitioner in filing the present writ petition, therefore, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. Even otherwise, from the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that petitioner is not an aggrieved person by the impugned resolution and he Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Ramji Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Indrasen Singh Tomar Vivek Kumar Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) is only a complainant, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 10, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 31337 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad