Allahabad High Court

RAVINDRA TIWARIversusSMT. SAUMYA AGARWAL, CHAIRMAN/ COMMISSIONER, PRAYAGRAJ DIVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The court held that no contempt of court had occurred and dismissed the contempt application, while directing the authority to try to issue the notice within three months.

Summary

The applicant, Ravindra Tiwari, purchased a flat from Skynet Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. and, after possession, found certain areas unconstructed. He filed Writ‑C No. 34859 of 2025 seeking compliance with a prior judgment (Shipra Shishty Apartment v. State of U.P., Writ‑C No. 13298 of 2020) that directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to compel the builder to complete construction. The earlier order, however, did not expressly require the Authority to issue a notice to the private builder. The applicant then filed a contempt application alleging non‑compliance with the writ order. The High Court examined whether the failure to issue a notice amounted to contempt and concluded that prima facie no contempt existed. It directed the Vice Chairman of the Prayagraj Development Authority to attempt issuance of the notice within three months and disposed of the contempt application.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to issue a notice to the private builder as per the earlier writ order constitutes contempt of court.

Subjects

contempt of court
writ petition
development authority
private builder
court direction
notice issuance
civil contempt

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2984 of 2026

Ravindra Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Smt. Saumya Agarwal, Chairman/ Commissioner,
Prayagraj Divelopment Authority And 2 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pavan Kumar Pandey, Ravindra Tiwari,
Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The applicant, before this Court, had purchased a flat from one Skynet
Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Upon the project having been completed,
possession of the flat was handed over but there are certain unconstructed
areas left in the apartment which need to be addressed by private builder.

2. The applicant had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No.
34859 of 2025 which was disposed of on 14.10.2025 relying upon the
Division Bench judgment rendered in Writ-C No. 13298 of 2020 (Shipra
Shishty Apartment vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), decided on
05.01.2021, which reads as under:-

"1. Mr. Mangla Prasad Rai, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr.
Ravindra Tiwari, appear on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients
had paid good money for purchasing flats. Private respondent no.5 has
not completed the construction. Accordingly, his clients seek direction
upon respondent no.3 (Prayagraj Development Authority) to compel the
developer to complete the construction.
2. He relies on order dated 5th January, 2021 of a Division Bench of this
Court, disposing of Writ C no. 13298 of 2020 (Shipra Srishty Apartment
Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). He submits, same directions be made in
his clients' writ petition.
3. Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Shashwat Pratap,
CAPL No. 2984 of 2026
2

learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of respondent no.3.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent no.4 (the Nagar Nigam).
4. We do not deem it necessary to direct issuance of notice on respondent
no.5 (the builder). Instead, we dispose of the writ petition as covered by
said order dated 5th January, 2021 (supra). Directions made in said
order are deemed to have been made herein. In complying with the
directions, concerned authority will notice private respondent no.5.
Petitioners will communicate certified copy of this order to respondent
no.3.
5. The writ petition is disposed of."

3. It appears that the writ Court had not issued any direction for issuance
of notice to private builder and had left the matter to be considered by
Prayagraj Development Authority.

4. In view of said fact, prima facie, no case for contempt is made out.

5. However, Vice Chairman, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj
shall try to comply the directions of writ Court as far as possible in
issuance of notice to private builder, within a period of three months,
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the contempt application stands disposed
of.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 5, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)

Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…