HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16717 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Mrs. Anjali Upadhya has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 4. 2. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed, notice need not to be issued to the private respondent no. 3. 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs. "(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to bifurcate the charges of water outstanding against the respondent no. 3 and charge the same separately from the petitioner from the date of possession i.e. 27.09.2024; (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to accept the water charges from the date of possession to the apartment owners i.e. 27.09.2024 without any penal interest or charges; (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the members of the petitioner association in default of payment of outstanding towards the respondent no. 3; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C. French Apartment Owner Association .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (v) Award costs of the petition to the Petitioner throughout." 4. In pith and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 30.01.2026 pending before the respondent no. 4 may be decided expeditiously. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent very fairly states that in case the aforementioned representation is pending consideration, the same will be considered and decided expeditiously by the Authority concerned. 6. In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to decide the aforementioned representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter specially respondent no. 3. Needless to say, we have not adverted on merit of the case. May 7, 2026 A.K.Srivastava WRIC No. 16717 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad