Allowed

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. U.P. Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2024WRIC/2268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition. The court quashed an order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the State Government. The order was quashed as it failed to address specific grounds raised by the petitioner concerning extension of construction time periods. The matter was remitted to the State Government for passing a fresh order after

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.01.2024 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order specifically considering the grounds not addressed previously.

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21487

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2268 of 2024 Petitioner :- E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. U.P. Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Tewari,Siddharth Nandwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sachin Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Apoorva Tiwari and Shri Siddharth Nandwani, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Wasiuddin Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

The short argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the revision that had been filed by the petitioner before the State Government against the order dated 12.10.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, of the many grounds that the petitioner has taken, two grounds had specifically been taken in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the revision, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the petition, namely (a) that the benefit of the order passed by the State Government in the case of Antriksh Developers & Promoters Pvt Ltd vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority dated 23.07.2023 be also extended to the petitioner regarding extension of time period of construction without charges and (b) the benefit of government order dated 20.07.2022 which provides for grant of 6 months further extension be also extended to the petitioner.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid grounds having been taken before the

¶9

respondent no. 1 and the same were not objected to / opposed / rebutted by the authorities while filing its reply, a copy of which is annexure 19 to the petition, the State Government vide the order impugned dated 19.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, has failed to revert to the aforesaid grounds and have also failed to discuss the said grounds whereby vitiating the order impugned.

¶10

Perusal of the order impugned would indicate that of the many grounds that had been taken by the petitioner in the revision that had been filed with the respondent no. 1, two grounds namely grounds taken in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the petition which pertain to extension to the petitioner of the benefit of the order in the case of Antriksh Developers & Promoters Pvt Ltd (supra) and extension of benefit of the government order dated 20.07.2022 have not even been referred to by the State Government while deciding the revision of the petitioner vide the order impugned dated 19.01.2024.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 to pass fresh order specifically considering the grounds as aforesaid.

¶13

Let an order in this regard be passed in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶15

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

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. U.P. Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. U.P. Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Sneh Lata Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Tanda Thru Chairman Ambedkar Nagar Ors.

Neelam Gupta and 2 Others Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 13 Lko. and 3 Others

Sayyed Abbas Ameer Vs Uttar Pradesh Waqfs Tribunal, through its Registrar, and 3 Others

Krishna Kamal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Shitla Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 5 Others

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Deepak Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development Deptt. U.P. Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others