Dismissed¶19

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIC/14844/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; maintainability of writ petition; discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 declined; mandamus for allotment of plot refused; U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad; Sikandra Yojna Sector 16B Agra; plot no. 9; advertisement/draw of 2003; cancellation of auction dated 23.06.2004; parity with pending Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25398 of 2004 (Ashok Kumar Yadav); stay of allotment of plots; WRIT - C No. 14844 of 2026; Omwati v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; dismissed as sans merit.

What did the court decide?

The objection raised by the contesting-respondent qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay has force. ¶18

Omwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus for allotment of plot no. 9 in Sector 16B of Sikandra Yojna, Agra is maintainable in view of the inordinate delay, the draw having taken place pursuant to the 2003 advertisement and the auction dated 23.06.2004 having been cancelled. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The objection raised by the contesting-respondent qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay has force.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Key takeaways

The writ petition is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed; no mandamus for allotment of plot no. 9 is issued.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.) dismisses WRIT - C No. 14844 of 2026, Omwati v. State of U.P. and 3 others, whereby the petitioner sought a mandamus commanding allotment of plot no. 9 in Sector 16B of Sikandra Yojna, Agra (U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Agra Zone) and restraint against allotment to any other person. The claim rested on parity with the similarly situated Ashok Kumar Yadav, whose Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25398 of 2004 (concerning plot no. 8 in the same scheme, in which allotment of the plots was stayed) was claimed to be pending. Upholding the contesting-respondent's objection, the Court found that the advertisement for the draw took place in 2003, the petitioner had applied in time, and respondent no. 3 cancelled the auction dated 23.06.2004; mere pendency of the earlier petition could not sustain the belated claim. The objection on the ground of inordinate delay was held to have force, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition was dismissed as sans merit (May 5, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14844 of 2026

Omwati

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ayub Khan, Sanjay Agarwal : C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Sri Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contestingrespondent-U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred for a mandamus commanding the respondents-authorities to allot the plot no. 9 to the petitioner in Sector 16B of Sikandra Yojna Agra of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Agra Zone, Agra and further prayed for not to allot the aforesaid plot to any other person.

¶13

The entire claim has been set upon on the basis of order dated passed by the Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25398 of 2004 filed by similarly situated incumbent Ashok Kumar Yadav, which is claimed to pending consideration and request has been made to connect the instant case with the said petition.

¶14

At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent raised an objection qua maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay as the advertisement for draw of plot in question took place in the year 2003. Even though the petitioner had applied well within time. Later on, the respondent no. 3 has cancelled the auction dated 23.06.2004. Being aggrieved, another incumbent Ashok Kumar Yadav who has applied for allotment of plot no. 8 in the scheme in question, approached this Court by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25398

¶15

WRIC No. 14844 of 2026

¶16

¶17

of 2004, wherein the Court has pleased to stay the allotment of plots in question. Merely on the ground of pendency of the said petition, no such claim can be set up at this belated stage.

¶18

We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the objection so raised by learned counsel for the contesting-respondent has force. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

The writ petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

May 5, 2026

¶22

A.K.Srivastava

¶23

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

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omwati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Akhilesh Pandey vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Green Avenue Buildtech Private Limited and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babita Agarwal vs State of U.P. & 2 Others

Rani and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Green Avenue Buildtech Private Limited and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others