Petitioner sought quashing of an order directing deposit of excess construction cost for a duplex house and mandamus for lease execution. Court dismissed the petition as having rendered infructuous after respondent stated the amount was already deposited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13578 of 2016
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order / letter no. 859 dated 8.3.2016 (Annexure no.11) to the extent by which the respondent authority has directed the petitioner to deposite a sum of Rs. 10,07,000/- by way of excess cost of construction, before execution of lease deed, of the Duplex Typy House no. 191, Block-B, Area 200 square meters, Sector Sigma III allotted though allotment no. AML0368044 dated 22.08.2003 in favour of the petitioner.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to execute the lease of the dispute Duplex Type House no. 191, Block-B, Area 200 square meters, Sector Sigma III allotted through allotment no. AML0368044 dated 22.08.2003 in favour of the petitioner without demanding the amount of excess costs of construction as is being demanded and communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure no.7) and letter dated 8.3.2016 (Annexure no.11)."
Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 has stated that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 10,07,000/-, which has been demanded by the impugned order.
In view of the above, no sufficient ground survives to proceed in the matter, writ petition is dismissed as having rendered infructuous .
This order has been passed after hearing Ms Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Order Date :- 11.12.2018 JK Yadav
Yogesh Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Shashi Kant Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
