Basant Kumar Batham and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2025)

Basant Kumar Batham and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if so advised, within the limitation period prescribed thereunder; no opinion expressed on merits or adequacy of compensation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition against the order dated 31.7.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is maintainable, given the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ratio / Principle

The instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, the Court acting in view of the analysis and reasons in the order dated 15.10.2025 of the Division Bench in WRIT - C No. 26529 of 2025 (Ramashankar Yadav And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others).

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are so advised, within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.ratio¶16
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim or the adequacy of compensation awarded; these issues are left open to be decided independently by the appropriate forum in Section 34 proceedings, if filed.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), by order dated October 28, 2025 in Writ-C No. 35294 of 2025 (Basant Kumar Batham and others v. State of U.P. and others), dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition praying for certiorari against an order dated 31.7.2025 passed by respondent No.3 and mandamus to respondent No.3 to pass an afresh order in light of the judgment dated 20.5.2023 of the learned Additional District Judge, Aligarh in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Act 1996. Acting in view of the analysis and reasons in the Division Bench order dated 15.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 26529 of 2025 (Ramashankar Yadav and another v. Union of India and others), the Court granted the petitioners liberty to avail the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the prescribed limitation period, and clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim or the adequacy of compensation awarded, leaving those issues open to the appropriate forum.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 35294 of 2025

Basant Kumar Batham And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pankaj Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.3;

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pass afresh order in the light of judgment and order dated 20.5.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Aligarh in proceeding under Section 34 of the Act 1996;"

In view of the analysis and for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by Division Bench in WRIT - C No. - 26529 of 2025 (Ramashankar Yadav And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others) , we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section

WRIC No. 35294 of 2025

2

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are so advised, within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim or the adequacy of compensation awarded. These issues are left open to be decided independently by the appropriate forum under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 proceedings, if filed.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

October 28, 2025 NLY

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad