Allahabad High Court
ADITYAAGARWAL AND 22 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed without merits, with an observation that the representation dated 15‑04‑2026 shall be decided within three months.
Summary
Petitioners (Adityaagarwal and 22 others) filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, including the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, to execute a sub‑lease deed in favour of the allottee(s) of Ajnara Homes and to decide a representation dated 15‑04‑2026 within a stipulated period. The petitioners relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment (Civil Appeal No.11052 of 2025) to support their prayer. The High Court examined the material and, finding no substantive purpose in keeping the petition pending, disposed of it without expressing any view on the merits. With the parties’ consent, the Court observed that the representation filed by the petitioners should be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within three months of the certified copy of the order. The order was signed by Judges Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh on 6 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents should be directed to execute the sub‑lease deed in favour of the petitioners
- Whether the respondents should decide the petitioners' representation dated 15‑04‑2026 within a time‑bound manner
Subjects
- mandamus
- sub‑lease deed
- writ petition
- administrative delay
- expeditious decision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16201 of 2026
Adityaagarwal And 22 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh, Vishnu Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.
Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following
relief :-
"1) Issue a writ of Mandamus or an order, direction commanding
the respondents (especially respondent no. 2 and 4) to execute
sublease deed in favour of petitioners/allottee(s) of Ajnara Homes
(Tower N and 0) within time specified by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents (especially respondent no.2) to take
appropriate decision upon the application of the petitioner dated
15.04.2026 (Annexure No.5) within time bound manner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer for a direction
to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners dated
15.04.2026 within the stipulated period. In support of his submission, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court dated 16.12.2025
passed in Civil Appeal No.11052 of 2025; Ram Kishore Arora Vs. Bank of
Maharashtra & Ors.
WRIC No. 16201 of 2026
2
4. We have perused the material available on record and no useful purpose
would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration.
5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue
and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of with
an observation that the representation moved by the petitioners dated
15.04.2026 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…