Allahabad High Court
M/S BRAHHM ARPAN ORGANIC PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is directed to file a revision under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
Summary
M/s Brahhm Arpan Organic Private Ltd filed a writ petition challenging an order of the State of Uttar Pradesh, alleging it was maintainable. Respondent No.3 argued that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. The petitioner did not contest this point and agreed that the matter could be decided through a revision petition. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and directed the petitioner to file a revision within two weeks, which must be decided within three months of filing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to pursue the appropriate revision remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a revision remedy under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 is available.
- Whether the petitioner should be directed to file a revision instead of proceeding with the writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- maintainability
- Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10480 of 2026
M/S Brahhm Arpan Organic Private Limited
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mayank Kumar Agrawal, Saroj Giri
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of
respondent no.3, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3.
3. Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has
raised preliminary objection and submitted that against the order impugned,
petitioner has efficacious remedy to file revision under Section 32 of the Uttar
Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, therefore, petition is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts and
submitted that direction may be issued to decide the revision for which learned
counsel for respondents have no objection.
5. Considering the submissions raised learned counsel for the parties, the writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file revision. In case any
such revision is filed within two weeks from today, the same shall be decided
the maximum within three months from the date of filing of revision.
March 19, 2026
Junaid
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…