Saurabh Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Jagdish Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent and Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for U.P. Housing and Development Board (in short "Board").

¶11

The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the E-Auction notice dated 19/02/2026 published by the respondent no.2 in respect of the residential plot no.1B-1371/10 of Yojna No.2 Kanpur Nagar area 242 square metre at serial no.18, a residential plot.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent

¶14

no.2 to allot the residential plot no.1B-1371/10 of Yojna no.2 Kanpur nagar, area 242 square metre at serial no.18, a residential plot in favour of the petitioner."

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a scheme known as "Hamara Prayas Aapka Aavas" was launched by the Board and an e-auction dated 27.10.2025 was published in respect of the property in question, which is residential in nature. The petitioner being eligible applied against the said property, participated in the said e-auction and deposited a sum of Rs.3,93,008/- under the relevant head. In the said auction, the petitioner was found the highest bidder. It is submitted that though the petitioner was the highest bidder, instead of settling the plot in favour of the petitioner, in an

¶16

WRIC No. 6513 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

arbitrary manner, the respondents had proceeded to re-auction the said plot.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the Board has resisted the relief and submitted that the second auction was made by the Board on the ground that the petitioner and his real brother both have submitted separate bids and the same has been treated as single bid, considering them to be members of one family, and as such the respondents had taken decision to re-auction the property.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, has placed reliance on the notification of the Board dated 16.06.2016, whereby only spouse and minor children comes under the definition of family. It is submitted that the real brother does not come within the definition of family and as such the action of the respondents is not justified.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the notification dated 16.06.2016, we are of the prima facie opinion that petitioner being highest bidder cannot be non-suited merely on the ground that his real brother had also participated in the bid. Proper instruction is to be placed as to under what circumstances the petitioner and his real brother has been treated as single bid, whereas the notification provides otherwise.

¶22

On the request of learned counsel for the Board, put up this matter as fresh on 24.02.2026.

¶23

Needless to say, the auction in question, which is scheduled tomorrow, shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.

¶25

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) February 18, 2026 SP/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Similar cases

Shobha Developers through Its Proprietor Keshav Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash and 6 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Birendra Singh Alias Vrishbhanu and Another vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Raj Kishor vs State of Up and 5 Others

Digvijay Raj Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 4 Others

Pradeep Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others