M/S Shreyas Textiles Noida,G.B.Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor Anuj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure and Industrial Developement Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2026A227/3209/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; writ petition; direction for expeditious disposal of revision petition dated 20.05.2026; eight weeks; certified copy; State of U.P.; Principal Secretary, Infrastructure and Industrial Development; Shreyas Textiles Noida; Anuj Kumar Sharma; allotment cancellation 09.05.2022; M/s Bunti Lal; third-party rights; interim relief; Kartikey Dubey; Sanjay Bhasin; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 (State of U.P.) to decide the petitioner's revision petition dated 20.05.2026 within eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law; any third-party allotment to remain subject to the outcome of the revision. ¶¶13

M/S Shreyas Textiles Noida,G.B.Nagar Thru. Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (State of U.P.) should be directed to decide the petitioner's revision petition dated 20.05.2026 expeditiously. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with the consent of parties, with a direction to respondent No.1 (State of U.P.) to decide the petitioner's revision petition dated 20.05.2026 within eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

While taking its decision, the State authority may, while considering the application for interim relief, also take note of the facts that the cancellation took place on 09.05.2022 and third-party rights were created by the fresh allotment to M/s Bunti Lal.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

If any third-party allotment has been made (as stated, in favour of M/s Bunti Lal), the same shall be subject to the outcome of the pending revision.ratio¶¶18
The Court has not examined the case of either party on merits; the concerned authority shall take a decision strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3209 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.), decided 29.05.2026. M/s Shreyas Textiles Noida sought a direction to respondent No.1, the State of U.P. (Principal Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Industrial Development), to decide its revision petition dated 20.05.2026 expeditiously. Held, disposing of the writ petition with the consent of parties: respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition within eight weeks of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. While considering the application for interim relief, the State may also note that cancellation took place on 09.05.2022 and third-party rights were created by a fresh allotment in favour of M/s Bunti Lal, and any such third-party allotment shall be subject to the outcome of the revision. The Court expressly did not examine the merits of either party's case.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3209 of 2026

¶3

M/S Shreyas Textiles Noida,G.B.Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor Anuj Kumar Sharma

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure And Industrial Developement Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Sanjay Bhasin learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶12

By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made for directing respondent No.1 i.e. the State to decide the revision petition said to have been preferred by the petitioner, dated 20.05.2026, expeditiously.

¶13

Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made in this petition, the writ petition is disposed off with the consent of parties with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶14

It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the substantial legal rights in respect of the property in question are involved hence the same may be preserved. This is controverted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and it has been informed that the cancellation had taken place on 09.05.2022 and third party rights have already been created as the fresh allotment has been made in favour of the M/s Bunti Lal.

¶15

Be that as it may, since the matter is before the State authorities who is required to take a decision, while taking note of the application for interim relief these facts may also be considered.

¶16

A227 No. 3209 of 2026

¶17

¶18

In case of any third party allotment has been made as stated then the same shall be subject to the outcome of the revision.

¶19

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the concerned authority shall take a decision strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶21

May 29, 2026 Harshita

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶23

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

M/S Shreyas Textiles Noida,G.B.Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor Anuj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure and Industrial Developement Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shreyas Textiles Noida,G.B.Nagar Thru. Its Proprietor Anuj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure and Industrial Developement Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Mohd. Gufran and 3 Others vs Kshretriya Sadhan Cooperative Society Ltd. Thru. Secy. Sultanpur and 7 Others

Mohd. Jaheer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 8 Others

Mohd. Khalid and 2 Others vs Mohammad Jameel and 10 Others

Ravindra Pratap Singh vs Prescribed Authority Regulated Area / Sub Divisional Magistrate Sultanpur and Another

C/M Kanhaiya Lal Parmeshwar Deen Shiksha Samiti Thru.Sanrakshak Smt.Bechana Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Sunil Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others