Dismissed¶18

Sujeet Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/11694/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fishery lease; Machhli Palan Patta; Gata No. 1760; 1.3460 hectare; Village Afzalpurwari; Tehsil Sirathu; District Kaushambi; highest bidder; withdrawal of advertisement; mandamus; refund of deposited amount; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 11694 of 2026; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the amount already deposited by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of his application, along with a certified copy of the order. ¶18

Sujeet Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11694 of 2026

Sujeet Kumar Sonkar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Deepak Singh Patel, Dheerendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 36

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶10

1. This petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶11

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and issue the fishery lease (Machhli Palan Patta) in favour of the petitioner regarding Gata No. 1760, area 1.3460 hectare, situated in Village Afzalpurwari, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi within a time bound period

¶12

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.2/3 to consider and decide the representation/application of the petitioner regarding allotment of fishery lease (Machhli Palan Patta) of Gata No. 1760, area 1.3460 hectare situated in Village Afzalpurwari, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.(Annexure No.1 to this writ petition)."

¶13

Instructions have been submitted by learned Standing Counsel, which are taken on record.

¶14

On the basis of instructions, it has been submitted that wrong advertisement was issued by the respondent authorities as the earlier period of lease has not expired on the date of advertisement and therefore, the same was withdrawn. It has also been stated by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner has been informed to withdraw the money deposited by him. Petitioner was the highest bidder and no lease has been executed in his favor. Merely being the highest bidder, the petitioner has

¶15

WRIC No. 11694 of 2026

¶16

¶17

no right to compel the respondents to grant lease to him.

¶18

In view thereof, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶19

The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within three weeks from the date when the petitioner applies for the same along with a certified copy of this order.

¶20

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶21

May 6, 2026 Nitika Sri.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sujeet Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baliram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sursatti Devi Vs State of Up and 7 Others

Isthar Ahmad Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shabbir Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Abbas Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babloo Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others