Partly allowed

Rakesh Chandra Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2025WRIC/10644/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Director of Women Welfare Department to pay rent for the period the premises remained in occupation by a state functionary, rejecting the department's earlier dismissal of the petitioner's claim based on administrative guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Director directed to pay rent for outstanding period within two weeks.

Rakesh Chandra Rastogi vs State of U.P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10644 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Chandra Rastogi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jitendra Bahadur,	Abhishek Verma,
	Shobh Nath Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, 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 has prayed for the following substantial reliefs:

¶13

"(i) issue a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by opposite party no.2 viz. Director Mahila Kalyan Department 6th Floor Jawahar Bhawan Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no.2 to make payment of arrears of Rs 1,24,500/- along with 18% interest to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 had taken the petitioner's house on rent. He further submits that respondent No.6 has vacated the premises, but has not paid the outstanding rent for a period of eight months and nine days. It is further submitted that this matter had earlier come before this Court and the Court had passed the following order:-

¶16

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents State.

¶17

WRIC No. 10644 of 2025

¶18

¶19

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶20

"(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 viz Director Mahila Kalyan Department 6th Floor Jawahar Bhawan Lucknow to release the fund to opposite party no. 5 to ensure payment of arrears of Rs.1,24,500/- along with 18% interest accrued until payment is made to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

¶21

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Women Samakhya Programme is working under the Department of Women Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow and District Programme Coordinator Mahila Samakhya, Sitapur had taken possession of the petitioner's house No. 108 Mohalla ShivPuri Colony District Sitapur on rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner received rent with effect from 01.04.2019 to 31.07.2020 of around Rs.2,70,000/-. The petitioner's house was vacated only on 09.04.2021. At the time of vacating the house, the rent of the house with effect from 01.08.2020 to 09.04.2021 was not paid to the petitioner and only a promise was given to the petitioner to make a payment after release of fund by respondent no. 2.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred Annexure-6 to the petition, which is a letter sent by the District Probation Officer, Sitapur to the Director, Women Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow on 02.01.2024.

¶23

5. This petition is disposed of with the direction to the Director, Women Welfare Department, 6th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow (respondent no. 2) to look into the grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in the letter of the District Probation Officer, Sitapur and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him."

¶24

In compliance of the said order, the representation made by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2024 on the ground that as per the G.O., the house was to be taken for a particular period and after the expiry of that period, no rent is due.

¶25

On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the house remained with the respondent No.6 after the said period and for that period, the respondents are not paying the rent. The premises was in the occupation of respondent No.6 and for which he has

¶26

WRIC No. 10644 of 2025

¶27

¶28

to pay the rent.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents admits that as per the instructions, it appears that certain material belonging to the respondents remained in the said premises until April 2021.

¶30

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to pay the rent for the outstanding period within a period of two weeks.

¶31

List this matter on 8th December, 2025 for compliance.

¶32

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶33

November 14, 2025 Ashutosh

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Chandra Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Chandra Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan 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

Raj Kamal Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and 2 Others

M/S Addison International Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr.Manish Raj Singh and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 6

M/S Skynet E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Sanjeev Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Rama Traders Thru.Proprietor Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. of State Tax) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Bizcorp Hospitality Private Limited, Lko. Thru. Director Aayush Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and Ors.