M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Ms.Shiwanjali Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure/Industrial Development and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8807 of 2025

¶3

M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Ms.Shiwanjali Pandey

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure/Industrial Development And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Khare, Aahuti Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Waseeq Uddin Ahmed

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶10

Order on Amendment Application

¶11

The amendment application filed today is taken on record.

¶12

The amendment application is allowed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the prayer clause.

¶14

Order on Writ Petition

¶15

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Waseeq Uddin Ahmed the counsel for the respondents no.3 & 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel.

¶16

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶17

"(i) to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the State of U.P. from reconsidering final order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Revision No. 1922/77-4-24/Appeal 89/23, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, in furtherance of board resolution no.214/50 dated 12.07.2024 of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

¶18

WRIC No. 8807 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

(ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case; and

¶21

(iii) to allow this writ petition with all costs in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

(iv) to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the board decision taken at agenda no.50 in 214th board meeting dated 12.07.2024 as contained in Annexure No.2;

¶23

(v) to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement final order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Revision No. 1922/77-4-24/Appeal 89/23, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, in its letter and spirit within a reasonable fixed period of time as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court."

¶24

The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the subsequent decision taken by the State Government on 27.03.2025 to the effect that against the order passed by the revisional authority, no power of review is available in respect of orders passed under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

¶25

In view thereof, similar petition being Writ-C No.7009 of 2024 was disposed off by the following order on 11.04.2025 :

¶26

"1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari and Sri Abhishek Khare, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra along with Sachin Upadhyay and Ms. Shreya Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.3 and 4.

¶27

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that after an order dated 14.12.2023 was passed in Revision No.7637/77-4-23/67 G.N/20, a decision has been taken by the Board on 15.06.2024 to prefer a review, which according to the petitioner is not maintainable.

¶28

3. The issue with regard to the maintainability of a review in the revision proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, is now settled by the decision of the State

¶29

WRIC No. 8807 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

Government itself taken on 27.03.2025 wherein it has been categorically decided that a review would not lie against an order passed by the revisional authority in exercise of its power under Section 41.

¶32

4. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed off holding that the decision to prefer a review would not be acted upon by the respondentauthority, however, they are liberty to take such steps as are available under law."

¶33

Considering the import of the order already passed by this Court, the present petition is disposed off observing that in case the respondent authority feels, it may take such steps as may be advised under law, however, such steps shall be taken within a period of three months. In case, the remedy as sought to be availed, is not availed, the revisional order shall be implemented in accordance with law.

¶34

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶35

September 15, 2025

¶36

Ashutosh

¶37

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

M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Ms.Shiwanjali Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure/Industrial Development and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Ms.Shiwanjali Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure/Industrial Development 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramapati Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 4 Others

U.P. Projects Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Lko. Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Mahadev Construction Company Thru. Authorized Representative Shri Madaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner State Tax U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Dist. Majestrate Barabanki Dist. Barabanki and 3 Others