Disposed¶11

Brij Kishore Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025WRIC/965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vending; Noida Authority; Redressal Grievance Committee; survey and draw of lots for vending zones; Vending Zone No. 17; Botanical Garden Multilevel Car Parking; Botanical Garden Metro Station; non-issuance of allotment letter; Article 226 writ petition; disposed with direction to issue allotment letter within four weeks; WRIT - C No. 965 of 2025; decided 2.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:45497-DB.

What did the court decide?

Allotment letter in respect of Vending Zone No. 17 to be issued in favour of the petitioners, if not already issued, within four weeks from the date of the order. ¶11

Brij Kishore Gupta and Another vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45497-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 965 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Brij Kishore Gupta And Another 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 petitioners feeling aggrieved by an order dated 05.12.2024 passed by Redressal Grievance Committee constituted by Noida Authority to examine the grievance of vendors has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶7

The impugned order records that a survey was got conducted by the Authority and on basis of a list prepared, the Authority held a draw of lots. In the said process, various vendors were allotted vending spaces in different zones. The petitioners were informed vide letter dated 27.11.2024 that they have been allotted space in Vending Zone No. 17, which is in the premises of Botanical Garden, Multilevel Car Parking. However, the vendors are not occupying the allotted space but are vending at Botanical Garden Metro Station, which is a congested area and where vending cannot be permitted.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not been issued any allotment letter in respect of Vending Zone No. 17 and therefore, the impugned order proceeds on a wrong premise.

¶9

Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, Development Authority, states that the Authority will examine the

¶10

said aspect and in case formal allotment order has not been issued the same will be issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of Vending Zone No. 17 within four weeks from today.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid stand of the respondent-Authority, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the petitioners would be issued allotment letter in respect of Vending Zone No. 17, if not already issued, within four weeks from today.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Mukesh Kr.

¶13

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶14

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

Brij Kishore Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Kishore Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramakant vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Rajaram Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahendra Pratap vs Nation Highway Authority of India, through Its Project Director, Piu, Prayagraj and 2 Others

Vishunadhari and Another vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Naresh Gupta vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others