HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16365 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today be kept on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gorakhpur Development Authority. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari called for the records of the case and quash the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 dated 17.01.2025 as communicated to the petitioner by means of impugned communication of the respondent no. 3 dated 21.01.2025. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandmaus commanding/directing the respondents, especially, the respondent no. 2 to accept, consider and take appropriate decision upon the petitioner's application under the One-Time Settlement (O.T.S.) Scheme-2026 dated 20.03.2026 and then, to restore the allotment of Kiosk No.14, Indira Bal Vihar, Gorakhpur in petitioner's favour within a stipulated time- frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 4. A particular kiosk for the selling of betel etc. was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1988 at the rent of Rs. 200/- per month. This rent was subsequently increased in the year 1999 to Rs. 288/-. Initially, when the shop in question was allotted to the petitioner on 02.02.1988, the petitioner was required to deposit a premium amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Out of that amount, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Mohan Ojha, Naveen Prabhakar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Narendra Pratap Singh Vishwanath Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioner deposited Rs. 15,000/- only and the remaining amount of Rs. 35,000/- were still required to be paid. However, when the premium amount was not paid and had mounted to an amount exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/-, the petitioner's allotment was cancelled on 21.01.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 17.04.2026 with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of filing the writ petition, there was a One Time Settlement Scheme dated 20.03.2026 and he had prayed that the regularization of his shop be done under that scheme. 6. Be that as it may, he submitted that even if the scheme was over the advantages which were flowing from the one time settlement scheme could always be availed by the petitioner as the writ petition could not be decided within the time stipulated under the scheme. 7. On 13.05.2026, the Court requested the learned counsel appearing for the Gorakhpur Development Authority to inform the Court with regard to the total outstanding amount which was payable by the petitioner. The Court had also requested the learned counsel appearing for the Gorakhpur Development Authority to inform the Court about the restoration charges. 8. Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the Gorakhpur Development Authority informed the Court, by means of a counter affidavit, that the petitioner's premium amount which the petitioner was required to pay in the year 1988 had now reached the figure of Rs. 2,52,374.55. He further submitted that 3% of the value of the land on which the kiosk was situate had to be taken as the restoration charge and that the restoration charge after calculation came to Rs. 9,96,307/-. Since this fact was stated in the counter affidavit the petitioner had replied to it by filing a rejoinder affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph no. 3(v), the petitioner had stated that he was ready and willing to pay the entire amount which was being demanded by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. The paragraph no. 3(v) of the rejoinder affidavit is being reproduced here as under: "(v) The petitioner categorically states that he is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Premium (Rs.2,52,374.55) as well as the Restoration Charge (Rs. WRIC No. 16365 of 2026 2 9,96,307/-) after adjusting the amount (Rs. 6,908/-) paid in excess towards rent." 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that, since the livelihood of the petitioner depends on the kiosk in question, the amount which has been asked for i.e. 2,52,374.55 + 9,96,307 = 12,48,681.55/- by the Gorakhpur Development Authority be paid by the petitioner and thereafter the consequential restoration of the allotment of the kiosk in favour of the petitioner be done. We are thus of the view that as and when the said amount is paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from today, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue with his business in the kiosk in question. 10. Since, we have permitted the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of three months, we are quashing the order/notice of the cancellation of the allotment dated 21.01.2025 and provided that the allotment as was made on 02.02.1988 shall stand restored. 11. Needless to mention that if the aforesaid amount is not paid along with the monthly rent, the Gorakhpur Development Authority shall be free to take action against the petitioner after the three months period lapses. 12. With these observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed. September 18, 2026 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 16365 of 2026 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad