Rakesh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing / Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Shri Devvrat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 3 and Ms. Ritika Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent no.4 is dispensed with.

¶12

The dispute was raised by the petitioner against respondent no.4, who is a developer, before the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as "RERA") and the said application of the petitioner was allowed by means of the order dated 18.12.2019.

¶13

In pursuance of the order dated 18.12.2019, a recovery certificate dated 01.09.2021 was issued by the RERA to the District Magistrate, Lucknow for recovery of the said amount. However, as no steps were taken by the District Magistrate to recover the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 4769 of 2024, which was disposed of by means of the order dated 27.05.2024 in the following terms:

¶14

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

¶15

2. For the orders proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.

¶16

3. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

¶17

WRIC No. 4730 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Joint Secretary, U.P.R.E.R.A. (respondent no. 3) to forward all details of the promoters and respondent company along with documents supplied by the Petitioner vide letter and e-mail dated 08.10.2023 (Annexure No. 9 to this Writ Petition) to the District Magistrate, Lucknow for execution of recovery proceedings arising from recovery certificate no. 7680/U.P.R.E.R.A./Vasuli/2021-22, dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition);

¶20

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Lucknow (respondent no. 2) to execute recovery proceedings arising from recovery certificate no. 7680/ U.P.R.E.R.A./ Vasuli/ 2021-22, dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) within a specified period as this Hon'ble Court deems proper."

¶21

4. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate Lucknow to take necessary steps for compliance of the Recovery Certificate dated 01.09.2021, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, if there is no other legal impediment."

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 27.05.2024 could not be complied with due to certain reasons that the property of the respondent had been seized by the Enforcement Directorate and therefore the District Magistrate, Lucknow could not comply with the directions of this Court. Even the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as infructuous.

¶23

In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the same prayer which was the subject matter of the previous writ petition.

¶24

The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that a second writ petition on the same cause of action would not be maintainable.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the aforesaid objection and submitted that on the previous occasion, the order of this Court could not be complied with due to reasons beyond the control of the authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Apart from this, it was submitted that the petitioner cannot be nonsuited for a claim which has already been accepted by the RERA and pursuant thereto, directions had been issued to the District Magistrate, Lucknow to execute the same.

¶26

WRIC No. 4730 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as per the Allahabad High Court Rules, a second writ petition on the same facts would not be maintainable. Even if, for the same reasons, the previous order of this Court dated 27.05.2024 could not be complied with, it was open to the petitioner to place the said facts before the Court in the previous writ petition and seek further directions therein. No reason has been forthcoming as to why an application could not have been preferred in the previous writ petition.

¶29

Subject to the aforesaid observations, no further directions are required to be passed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶30

May 14, 2026 Mahesh

¶31

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶32

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

Rakesh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing / Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing / Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shafik vs Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and Another

Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat Bhakti Dham Shri Kripalu Dham Mangarh Thru. Treasurer Rajeev Taneja vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 14 Others

Shahnavaz Mohammad vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India and 4 Others

Octa Core Construction and Services Thru. Proprietor Sarita Awasthi vs State of U.P.Thru.Its Addl.Chief Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development, U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Mohammad Amaan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Nagar Palika Parishad, Mahmoodabad, Sitapur Thru. Chairman and Another vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry. of Labour and Employment New Delhi and 3 Others