Disposed¶12

Rajkumar and 32 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/16294/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street vendors; vending shop allotment; Noida Authority; Work Circle 1 to 10; Section 3 Street Vending Act, 2014; license/allotment letter not issued despite survey, selection and fee deposit; no Judicial Officer posted in Authority Tribunal; writ disposed with direction to CEO Noida to examine grievance within six weeks after hearing affected persons; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 16294 of 2026; Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. and Kunal Ravi Singh, J.; decided May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Noida to examine the petitioners' grievance within six weeks from communication of the order, along with a fresh representation, after hearing the petitioners or any other person likely to be affected thereby. ¶12

Rajkumar and 32 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 16294 of 2026

¶3

Rajkumar And 32 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Neeraj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶6

Court No. - 21

¶7

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

¶8

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The case of the petitioners is that they, being existing street vendors, applied for allotment of vending shops under Section 3 of the Street Vending Act, 2014 in Work Circle 1 to 10, but despite surveys and selection, the Noida Authority has not issued licenses or allotment letters. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners have already deposited the requisite fees but the Authority has paid no heed to their applications.

¶11

Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority, states that the Tribunal dealing with the aforesaid matter is headed by a Judicial Officer and at present no Judicial Officer is posted in the Authority and therefore he submits that if this Court permits, the Chief Executive Officer, Noida will examine the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate decision.

¶12

Accordingly and having regard to the facts of the instant case, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the grievance of the petitioners shall

¶13

WRIC No. 16294 of 2026

¶14

¶15

be examined by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida within six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation after hearing the petitioners, or any other person likely to be affected thereby.

¶16

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

¶17

May 6, 2026 Sumit S

¶18

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

Rajkumar and 32 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar and 32 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Narendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anil Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vikram and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Omwati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Das and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others