Petitioner sought to quash an impugned order through a writ petition. The court held that an alternative remedy existed under the U.P. Real Estate Regulations Act, 2016 and dismissed the petition without adjudicating the merits.
None; petition dismissed for availability of alternative remedy.
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24239 of 2020
Petitioner :- M/S Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Pankaj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Wasim Masood
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief;
"1. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.07.2020 issued by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition).
2. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.7.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2.
3. any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
4. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner throughout."
Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 17.7.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate authority under Section 44 of the U.P. Real Estate Regulations Act, 2016. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
Shahnawaz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the U.P. Real Estate Regulations Act, 2016 before filing the present writ petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd.
State Of U P
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
