Disposed

Prakash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019WRIC/39088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to decide a pending representation for refund of infrastructure development fee deposited by the petitioner and directed the authority to pass a reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 4 to decide the pending representation within two months and refund the amount within one month of passing the reasoned order.

Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39088 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra,Hemendra Gautam,Namita Katara Gautam

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer to :-

¶8

I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 4 to refund the deposit amount of Rs. 18,56,991/- of Infra fee with interest which has been deposited by the petitioner in Account No. 518702010506693 of Union Bank of India, Mayur Vihar, Mathura in respect of Plot No. A-15, the total area 1153.41 sq.metre situated at Sunrakh Bangar in Rukmani Vihar Awasiya Yojna, Vrindavan Mathura run by Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura, U.P.

¶9

II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 25.04.2019 submitted by the petitioner through speed post pending before them within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶10

III. issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

¶11

IV. award the cost of this petition to the petitioner.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that provision requiring the developers to deposit infrastructure development fee having been quashed by Government Orders dated 15.01.1988 and 27.09.2018, the representation filed by the petitioner on 25.04.2019 for refund of the sum of Rs. 18,56,991/- deposited by the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 as infrastructure development charges, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, has not been decided till date.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that suitable direction be issued to the respondent no. 4 to take decision on the petitioner's representation pending before him within a specified period.

¶14

Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has no objection to the grant of prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner before him on 25.04.2019 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

In case the respondent no. 4 comes to the conclusion that the demand made by the petitioner is just, he shall refund the amount deposited by the petitioner towards infrastructure development charges within a period of one month from the date of passing of such order by him.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 KS

Prakash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Tyagi and Another Vs Smt. Ranjana Krishna and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs Smt. Deepa

Vrindavan Lawn Limited Laibility Partnership Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Prem Kishore Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and 2 Others

Shiksha Prasar Samitee, Beni Madhav Chavan Ji Maharaj Maha Vidyalaya Degree College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Rakesh Kumar Sharma and 13 Others Vs Raju Singh and 6 Others