Satya Vir Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 3 Others

Heard Mr. Karunanidhi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, Mr. Jay Narayan Mishra, advocate, holding brief of Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶13

By way of the present application, counsel for the applicant-petitioner has drawn attention of this Court that the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ A No. 1238 of 2025 has passed the final judgment and order dated 29.01.2025, whereby, the direction was given to complete the enquiry proceedings, within period of eight weeks, but once the same was not concluded within period prescribed by this Court, the Writ Petition No. 7129 of 2025 has been preferred by the applicant-petitioner. He submitted that by way of issuing show cause notice on 01.09.2025, the department again proceeded in the matter without any order passed by this Court for extension of time period for conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, in Writ A No. 1238 of 2025. He submitted that in light of the judgments and orders rendered in the cases of Abhishek prabhakar awasthi versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others (Allahabad High Court) F.B. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 and State of U.P versus Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, the department could not have proceeded in the matter, by further issuing show cause notice, in the same enquiry proceedings, therefore, the whole proceedings vitiates.

¶14

WRIA No. 7129 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no total bar for further proceedings in the matter, but the condition is that with the permission of the court, which extends the time period for conclusion of such enquiry proceedings. He further submitted that the respondent have moved an application for extension of time period, in Writ A No. 1238 of 2025, for conclusion of enquiry proceedings, in the month of August, 2025, which is still pending consideration, but he submits that admittedly no order has been passed as yet.

¶17

Mr. Jay Narayan Mishra, advocate, holding brief of Mr. K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4, submits that Mr. K.K. Pandey is on sanctioned leave, who appears for Lucknow Development Authority.

¶18

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that by way of judgment and order 29.01.2025, eight weeks time was granted for concluding the enquiry proceedings and that has admittedly not been concluded, therefore, no enquiry could have been proceeded after the expiry of period of time fixed by this Court, as is held in the cases of Abhishek prabhakar awasthi(supra) and Ram Prakash Singh(supra). The fact remains that the enquiry proceedings has again been proceeded by issuing a show cause notice on 01.09.2025, without extension of time, on the application moved by the respondent in August, 2025, which is impermissible under the law.

¶19

In this view of the matter, the notice dated 01.09.2025 and the proceedings in furtherance to the show cause notice are hereby stayed.

¶20

Liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed in the enquiry after any order is passed for extension of time period for conclusion of the enquiry proceeding.

¶21

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Order on Petition)

¶23

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 26.01.2026.

¶24

December 16, 2025

¶25

Mayank

¶26

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)