Disposed¶16

Ram Sabad Misra v. U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025WRIC/10568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim-stay judgment on recovery of alleged excess compensation: Article 226 writ petition; competent authority recovery of Rs. 69,80,754/- dated 17.06.2025 stayed till further orders; payment originally made per arbitration award dated 22.12.2017; prima facie case and balance of convenience found in petitioner's favour; counter affidavit in four weeks, rejoinder in two weeks; next date 12.01.2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; judges Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla; Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the recovery dated 17.06.2025 and any further proceedings pursuant thereto, till further orders; counter affidavit directed within four weeks and rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter; matter listed for 12.01.2026. ¶16

Ram Sabad Misra vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Road… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10568 of 2025

Ram Sabad Misra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.O.I. Thru. Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Rajendra Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Abhishek Pathak, C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the competent authority in seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 69,80,754/- in lieu of alleged excess payment of compensation that has been made to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner submits that the payment that has been made to the petitioner has been made in terms of the arbitration award that was passed on 22.12.2017.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been able to give a satisfactory response as to why this recovery is being made.

¶15

In light of the same, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, the recovery dated 17.06.2025 and any further proceedings taken pursuant to the same are stayed, till further orders of this Court.

¶17

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶18

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶19

List/Put up this matter on 12.01.2026.

¶20

November 17, 2025 Satish

¶21

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶22

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

Ram Sabad Misra v. U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sabad Misra v. U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Narayan Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Cooperative, Lko. and Others

Imtiaz Alavi and 4 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Usha Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Aijaz Ahmad vs Union of India Thru. (Psp Division) Ministry of External Affairs , New Delhi and Others

Imtiaz Alavi and 4 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Devi Prasad Tiwari and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development U.P. Lko. and 4 Others