Disposed¶14

Mustakeem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIC/44191/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ - C No. 44191 of 2025, decided December 16, 2025 (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. and Kunal Ravi Singh, J.). Petitioners Mustakeem and 4 others versus State of U.P. and 3 others (including NOIDA). Mandamus-type relief: direction to respondent no.2 to decide pending representation/application dated 18.11.2025 in accordance with law within three months after hearing all stakeholders; writ petition disposed of on consent, no merits decided. No statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 18.11.2025 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, after affording opportunity to all stakeholders; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶14

Mustakeem and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 44191 of 2025

¶3

Mustakeem And 4 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pramod Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Rajbhar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶9

Court No. - 29

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

¶12

In pith and substance, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his relief that the application of the petitioners dated 18.11.2025, which is pending consideration before respondent no.2, may be considered and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances, without adverting any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, we dispose of the writ petition requiring the petitioners to approach the second respondent by filing copy of their representation dated 18.11.2025 annexing certified copy of this order and in case, such copy of the representation is filed, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter, but certainly after affording opportunity to all the stakeholders in the matter.

¶15

December 16, 2025 NLY

¶16

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

¶17

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

Mustakeem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustakeem and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dujendar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrapal vs State of Up

Veerpal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up

Devideen vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakeshri vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others