Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed as not pressed because the authority letter does not confer valid legal authorization.

Summary

The Factory Owners Association and four others filed a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the State to halt construction of a Rail Over Bridge on government land in the Nunhai Industrial Estate, Agra, and to shift the project elsewhere. The petition relied on an authority letter from the President of the Association, which the Court held did not constitute valid legal authorization. The Court examined whether the petition was maintainable without proper authorization and whether it was pressed. Finding the authorization insufficient and the petition not pressed, the Court dismissed the petition but granted leave to the petitioners to file fresh proceedings in compliance with law. No substantive order regarding the construction was issued.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners have valid legal authority to file the PIL on behalf of the Factory Owners Association.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to stop the construction of the Rail Over Bridge.
  • Whether the petition is pressed and maintainable under Article 226.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Mandamus
  • Rail Over Bridge
  • Authorization
  • Industrial Estate
  • Government Land
  • Petition not pressed

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 665 of 2026

Factory Owners Association And 4 Others
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of U.P. And 9 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Arti Agarwal,
                                      Indra Deo Mishra, Jigyasa Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C., Prateek Kumar

Court No. - 21
             HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
             HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents,
and Shri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 8
and 9.

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

     "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
     the respondents to stop the construction of proposed project for Rail Over
     Bridge on Main Road in Industrial Estate Nunhai, Agra for the outside
     residential Colony of Prakash Nagar Unit, Plot No. 71 to 53 situated
     within the boundary of Industrial Development which is Government
     Land,


     b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
     the respondent to shift the aforesaid Rail Over Bride (hereinafter referred
     as ROB) Project to somewhere else so that justice can be done to the
     factories run under the Estate Nunhai.


     c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
     Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.


     d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
                                                                                                WPIL No. 665 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    3. The instant petition has been preferred as a Public Interest Litigation on
                                    the basis of an authority letter issued by the President, Factory Owners’
                                    Association, which is filed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The said letter
                                    does not confer any valid authorization in the eyes of law.

                                    4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not recognize the said
                                    authorization, as the same is not in accordance with law.

                                    5. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the
                                    petitioners fairly submits that the instant Public Interest Litigation be
                                    dismissed as not pressed, and leave may be accorded to the petitioners to
                                    institute a fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

                                    6. With the aforesaid leave, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.



                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Mukesh Kr.




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.