Disposed¶13

Badal Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025WRIC/41436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vending zone allotment; street vendor survey 2018; rejection of claim quashed for failure to consider Authority's own survey report; acknowledgement of 01.11.2018 application for street vending in Sector-29, Noida directed to be verified; remit for fresh consideration; Allahabad High Court, Writ-C 41436 of 2024, decided 23.01.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:12372-DB; bench Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.; no statute or precedent relied upon in the judgment text.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 quashed; matter remitted to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations of the Court; petition disposed of. ¶13

Badal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 quashed; matter remitted to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations of the Court; petition disposed of.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had made an application in 2018 for allotment of a vending zone, as sought to be evidenced by the acknowledgement filed with the writ petition. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

In the interest of justice, the acknowledgement filed by the petitioner (for the first time in the writ petition) evidencing his 2018 application requires to be verified and considered by respondent no.3.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 19.11.2024 is quashed on the sole ground that respondent no.3 failed to consider the survey report of the survey conducted on the basis of applications submitted in the year 2018, even though that report was prepared by the respondent-Authority itself.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Division Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.), Writ-C No. 41436 of 2024 (Badal Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 others), order date 23.01.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:12372-DB. The Division Bench quashed an order dated 19.11.2024 of respondent no.3 rejecting the petitioner's claim for allotment of a vending zone, solely because respondent no.3 had failed to consider the survey report of the survey conducted on the basis of applications received in 2018 — a report admittedly prepared by the respondent-Authority itself, whose counsel conceded that the burden lay on the Authority to show from it whether the petitioner's name found place therein. The Bench further held that the acknowledgement annexed to the writ petition (Annexure-2, page-27) showing an application for street vending in Sector-29, Noida filed on 01.11.2018, though produced for the first time before the High Court, required verification and consideration by respondent no.3. The matter was remitted to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration and the writ petition was disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12372-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.16)

¶3

Court No. - 21

¶4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41436 of 2024 Petitioner :- Badal Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 19.11.2024 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a vending zone. The impugned order records that the petitioner could not file any evidence to prove that he had filed any application in the year 2018 for allotment of vending zone. It is further stated that the survey was conducted by the Authority on the basis of applications received in the year 2018 and the petitioner has also not disclosed whether his name was included in the survey list or not. Respondent no.3 also recorded in its order that street vendors who made claim in 2018 are still to be allotted vending areas and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been found to be unsustainable.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on an acknowledgement annexed at page-27 of the writ petition (Annexure-2), which evidences that an application for street vending in Sector-29, Noida was filed on 01.11.2018. It is further submitted that the survey report is a document prepared by the respondent-Authority and therefore, respondent no.3 should have looked into the said report itself.

¶8

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Authority concedes that the survey report was prepared by the Authority and consequently it was the burden of the Authority to demonstrate therefrom as to whether the name of the petitioner finds place in the same or not.

¶9

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that respondent no.3 had failed to consider the survey report of the survey conducted on basis of applications submitted in the year 2018. Moreover, the petitioner has filed an acknowledgement as noted above, though for the first time in the instant petition and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the same also

¶10

requires to be verified and considered by respondent no.3.

¶11