Disposed

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar v. District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2025A227/6348/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cold storage sought stay of recovery proceedings and early disposal of its restoration application pending before the U.P. Cold Storage Tribunal after its appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court disposed of the petition directing the Tribunal to decide the restoration application within three weeks, subject to deposit of the decretal amount with recovery kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to U.P. Cold Storage Tribunal to dispose Misc. Case No. 22 of 2025 within three weeks; recovery kept in abeyance subject to deposit of decretal amount with adjustments within a week.

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6348 of 2025

¶3

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Amal Rastogi, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Ashish Pratap Singh, Shobhit Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Adnan Ahmad, Rahul Mishra, Zafar Aziz

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record.

¶12

Heard Shri Amal Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Abhishek Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondent nos. 1 to 5, Shri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for The New India Assurance Company Ltd.-respondent no. 6, Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 and perused the material available on record.

¶13

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶14

"i). to issue a writ, order or direction in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction stayed the recovery proceedings in respect of the recovery citation dated 08.09.2017 (annexed as Annexure No. 1), including any coercive steps being taken by the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 till the disposal of the restoration application registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2025 pending before the Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal.

¶15

ii). to issue an order or direction in exercise of

¶16

A227 No. 6348 of 2025

¶17

¶18

its supervisory jurisdiction, directing the Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal to decide the restoration application registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2025 in a time bound manner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

iii). pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties in the interest of justice."

¶20

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner preferred an appeal having Appeal No. 4 of 2017 (M/s Kumar Cold Storage Vs. District Horticulture Officer, Lucknow and others) under Section 36 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 challenging the order dated 24.04.2017 and 15.07.2017 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow and District Magistrate, Lucknow respectively.

¶21

The said appeal was admitted on 21.09.2017 and learned U.P. Cold Storage Tribunal, Lucknow stayed the operation of the order of recovery pursuant to the demand notice.

¶22

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case was fixed for final argument on 25.08.2025 but due to unavailability of the boardroom, the matter was adjourned and was again fixed on 08.09.2025. However, due to the non-appearance of the learned counsel for petitioner as he was suffering from high fever, the said appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 08.09.2025. The petitioner filed an Application for recall/restoration of Appeal No. 4 of 2017 on 18.09.2025, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2025 and the Notices were issued to the opposite parties by fixing the date as 10.11.2025.

¶23

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the respondent no. 7 moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance)/respondent no. 2 for the recovery of amount of Rs. 7,28,920/- along with other charges.

¶24

A227 No. 6348 of 2025

¶25

¶26

Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.2,16,533/- before the learned Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal. It is further contended on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner that although the application for restoration of the aforesaid appeal is already pending before the Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal but the respondent authorities are pressing hard for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,28,920/- along with other charges even without issuing any fresh recovery certificate and putting undue pressure upon the petitioner to deposit the amount at the earliest.

¶27

The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that once the application for restoration has already been filed and the same is pending consideration, the demand of the claimed amount is unjustified at this stage.

¶28

Per contra, Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since the appeal has already been dismissed and no interim order in favour of the petitioner is operating as on date, the proceedings for recovery is justified under law.

¶29

He has further submitted that since interim order in the aforesaid appeal was passed on 26.10.2017, but as of now the same is lying dismissed since 08.09.2025 even then the respondent no. 7 could not have get the said amount since the year 2017.

¶30

Taking into consideration the factual matrix as narrated here-in-above, this Court finds that since the application for Restoration having Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2025 is pending consideration before the Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by issuing directions to the concerned Tribunal for early disposal of the aforesaid pending application for restoration.

¶31

In view of the above, with the consent of parties, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to the learned Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal, Lucknow to expeditiously dispose of Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2025 within a maximum period of three weeks from today, strictly in accordance with law.

¶32

A227 No. 6348 of 2025

¶33

¶34

It is provided that the petitioner shall deposit the decretal amount of Rs.7,28,920/- after adjusting the amount already deposited by the petitioner before the learned Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal. The said amount to be deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in the interest bearing account and the withdrawal of the same shall remain subject to the order to be passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh Cold Storage Tribunal . The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a week from today.

¶35

In case if the amount as aforesaid is deposited by the petitioner within the period as specified here-in-above, the aforesaid recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶36

It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the aforesaid period, the benefit of this order shall not be made available to him.

¶37

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶38

November 10, 2025 Virendra

¶39

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

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar v. District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kumar Cold Storage Thru. Director,Shri Yash Kumar v. District Horticulture Officer,Lucknow and 6 Others

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

Vasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Mohd. Fahim Qureshi Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Distt. Ayodhya and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Vinti Pandey vs Dhananjay Tiwari

Anjali Singh vs Anuj Kumar Choudhary

Pt. Thakur Prasad Tripathi Kisan Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Akhileshwar Nath Tripathi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others