M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mudit Mishra v. Rakesh Singh and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025A227/6832/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order of the District Consumer Redressal Commission. The High Court accepted jurisdiction noting the impugned order was passed without deciding a jurisdictional plea. The court granted an interim stay on the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.29 of 2021.

M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6832 of 2025

¶3

M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mudit Mishra

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rakesh Singh And 5 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Prashast Puri, Madhur Jhavar, Varun Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Manish Jauhari, Sharad Tewari

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Prashast Puri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manish Jauhari, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.), Shri Ashish Saxena, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned District Consumer Redressal Commission, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.29 of 2021 which was filed by the respondent No.1 alleging that he was a consumer of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. his tube-well existed on a land which has been acquired by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Sukwinder Singh, a contractor engaged by the petitioner, has damaged the electricity pole installed on the land which had been acquired.

¶11

The petitioner filed objections against the complaint wherein it was specifically pleaded that the complainant is not the consumer of the petitioner and, therefore, no consumer complaint was maintainable against it. The District Consumer Redressal Commission has allowed the complaint against all the respondents to the complaint namely, The Executive Engineer Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sultanpur, Officer-In-Charge, Poorvanchal Expressway and Managing Director, M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable.

¶13

Replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when the petitioner had specifically raised a plea that the complainant is not the petitioner's consumer and, therefore, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction and the complaint has been allowed without deciding

¶14

A227 No. 6832 of 2025

¶15

¶16

this plea and the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, however, the commission has recorded findings that shifting of pole was not done by the petitioner. The existence of alternative remedy would not be a bar against the present petition being entertained by this Court.

¶17

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶18

Issue notice to the respondent No.1, returnable at an early date.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner may take requisite steps in this regard within next three working days.

¶20

Respondents may file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

¶21

The petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶22

List this case in week commencing 12.01.2026 .

¶23

Till the next date of listing, as an interim measure, it is provided that operation and implementation of order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the learned District Consumer Redressal Commission, Sultanpur in Complaint Case No.29 of 2021 shall remain stayed .

¶24

November 21, 2025 -Amit K-

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

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

M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mudit Mishra v. Rakesh Singh and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory Mudit Mishra v. Rakesh Singh and 5 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

Similar cases

Smt. Manju Devi @ Manju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Lal and Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others

Musheer Ahmad (Since Deceased ) Thru. Legal Heirs Mohd. Zameer and 3 Others vs Altafur Rehman ( Since Deceased) Thru. Ateek Ahmad and Others

M/S Visaka Industries Limited, Raebareli Thru. Authorized Signatory, Mr. Bhasker Asthana vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Commercial Tax Headquarters, Lko.

Baldev Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Ram Samujh and Another vs District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others