Dismissed¶22

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIC/39894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ maintainability; alternative relief after failure of specific-performance suit; laches / inordinate delay of 30+ years; refund of deposited amount with interest @ 20% p.a. compounded quarterly; residential plot Allotment No. 9341; Restoration Application 15.02.1995; Office Order 09.12.2013; Original Suit No. 1379 of 2012; second appeal affirmance; mandamus; State of Uttar Pradesh; WRIT - C No. 39894 of 2025; dismissed without costs; Allahabad High Court; Saral Srivastava J.; Sudhanshu Chauhan J.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed without any order as to cost. ¶22

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 39894 of 2025

¶3

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anukul Udai
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 40

¶10

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suchi Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶12

The petitioner by means of the preset petition has prayed for the following relief:-

¶13

"(i) Direct the Respondent No.2 to refund the entire amount of Rs.49,965.13 to the Petitioner along with interest @ 20% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of respective payments till actual refund;

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2 to allot and hand over possession of the residential plot allotted under Allotment No. 9341, pursuant to the Restoration Application filed by the petitioner on 15.02.1995 and pursuant to the Office Order dated 09.12.2013, in case the Respondent no.2 fails to repay the entire amount deposited by the petitioner, at the same rate existing at the time of the deposit. "

¶15

It appears that the plot was allotted to the petitioner in dismiss and default in payment of installment. Accordingly a notice was issued to the petitioner in the year, 1995 asking the petitioner to deposit the amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has deposited the said amount in the year 1995 and he has neither been given the possession of the plot nor has been refunded the amount which the petitioner has deposited.

¶16

WRIC No. 39894 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Ms. Suchita, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner filed a suit being Original Suit No. 1379 of 2012 for specific performance which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner thereafter took up the matter in first appeal and second appeal and this first and second appeal has been dismissed. Now the petitioner wants the aforesaid relief.

¶19

In such view of fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner's suit for specific performance has failed.

¶20

It is admitted fact that the petitioner had deposited the money in the year 1995 and more than 30 years have passed.

¶21

There is an inordinate delay of about more than 30 years in approaching this Court. Further the suit of the petitioner for specific performance has been dismissed by the trial court which the judgment and decree of trial court has been affirmed by this Court in the second appeal.

¶22

For the reasons given above, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.

¶23

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶24

November 21, 2025 Virendra

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ameer Hasan Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqra Agency vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S R.G. Traders vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushri Afroz B vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atar Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others