Dismissed

Sushil Raghav and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WPIL/623/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court's Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. dismissed a PIL seeking quashing of a lease for a Convention Centre. The court held the petitioner lacks locus standi to question the Parishad's decision to lease the facility for maintenance.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as the petitioner lacks locus standi and the plea based on the minutes for the Sector-16 Community Centre has no substance regarding the Convention Centre.

Sushil Raghav and Another vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118742-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 623 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sushil Raghav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nipun Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the lease granted in favour of respondent no.10 for running the Convention Centre situated at Sector-16-A, Vasundhara Yojna, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Submission has been made that U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad in its meeting dated 8.10.2012, had given consent for providing concession to the residents for use of the Community Centre at Sector-16. However, in violation of the said consent, the Convention Centre has been leased out. Further allegation has been made that the respondents are not justified in leasing out the Convention Centre and the same should have been operated by the Parishad itself.

¶8

Instructions have been produced by the respondents inter-alia indicating that the petitioner is confusing the Community Centre situated at Sector -16 and the Convention Centre situated at Sector16-A while the minutes dated 8.10.2012 pertains to the Community Centre at Sector-16, the Convention Centre is at Sector-16-A, which has nothing to do with the said minutes.

¶9

Further submission has been made that the Convention Centre

¶10

has been leased out for its maintenance and upkeep and qua that the petitioner has no locus and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶11

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶12

In so far as the reliance placed on the minutes dated 8.10.2012 is concerned, the same pertains to the Community Centre situated at Sector-16 and in fact the same has nothing to do with the Convention Centre situated at Sector-16-A and therefore, the plea raised based on the said minutes has no substance.

¶13

So far as the challenge laid to leasing out of the Convention Centre is concerned, the same essentially is a decision, which has to be taken by the Parishad as to whether it itself wants to run the said Convention Centre and/or lease it out for the purpose of its maintenance and upkeep for which the petitioner essentially has no locus standi to question the said decision of the Parishad.

¶14

Consequently, there is no substance in the present petition and the same is, therefore, is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 nd/piyush

¶16

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Raghav and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Raghav and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others

Jugnu Chaubey vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Union of India and Another vs Smt Sarita Singh

Swati Negi vs Vikas Verma and 2 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others