Rahul Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Thru. Secy. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024WPIL/405/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest petition by a registered architect challenged an RFP for software to implement a building plan approval system in Uttar Pradesh, alleging deviation from statutory bye-laws and Building Bye-Laws 2008. The court declined to stay the tender, issued notice to opposite party no. 2, sought counter affidavits including Articles of Association and bye-laws, and listed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party no. 2; respondents directed to file para-wise reply with Articles of Association and society bye-laws; tender not stayed; matter listed for July 2024.

Rahul Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Housing and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 405 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Thru. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prasoon Srivastava,Lalta Prasad Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The petitioner claiming himself to be a Registered Architect has filed this petition in public interest.

¶7

The grievance, in nutshell, is that the opposite party no. 2 which is a society registered with the Registrar of the Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is a State Government undertaking has issued a Request for Proposal for Development, Deployment, Oreprationalization and Maintenance of Software Application for implementing Fast & Simplified Trust Board plan Approval System (FASTPAS) and other Housing related approvals which, in fact, is a proposal inviting tender for development of software aforesaid which will be used for implementing guidelines for sanctioning of map, etc. pertaining to building plans throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

Submission of petitioner's counsel, in nutshell, is that this is in contravention of the bye-laws made by the opposite party no. 1 under the U.P. Urban and Planning Development Act, 1973 which has statutory force, therefore, this deviation from the statutory provision will result not only in compromising the public interest but will lead to serious legal complications.

¶9

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that the credentials of the petitioner are not very clear. He may file objections in this regard also, but, at the same time, opposite party no. 1 should respond to the averments made in the writ petition and file para-wise reply. While filing counter affidavit, the opposite party no. 1 shall bring on record the Articles of Association, Bye-laws of the society - opposite party no. 2 as to what is the scope of its activities.

¶10

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2.

¶11

The grievance essentially is regarding the software which is proposed to be prepared and the guidelines in this regard which are not in tune with the Building ByeLaws 2008. So far as the tender inviting bids for preparation of software, we are not inclined to stay at this stage, but, we will certainly consider other issues on the next date subject to any objection regarding credentials of the petitioner by the opposite parties.

¶12

List in the 1st week of July, 2024.

¶13

All pleas are open for consideration.

¶14

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 10.5.2024 Santosh/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Thru. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Chaudhary v. State of U.P. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Thru. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others vs Ramesh Chandra Raghav and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others vs Chandra Gupt Garg and Another

U.P.Anusuchit Jati Prathmik Vidyalay Shikshak Asstt. Lko Thru.Gen.Secy.Ramanand Vishwakarma and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Umesh Chandra Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Environment Lko and Ors.

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vijay Kumar vs Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag - I Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Dr. Smt. Shanti Sati Raj