Allahabad High Court
RAMESH CHANDRA KESARWANI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is premature and must be disposed of, with a direction to the authority to decide the pending objections within a reasonable time.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash demolition notices dated 13‑02‑2026 issued by the Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat Mauaima and a mandamus directing the authorities not to proceed with demolition. The petitioners had already submitted their objections to the notice on 18‑02‑2026, and no final order on those objections had been made. The Court examined the procedural posture and held that, since the objections were still pending a decision, the petition was premature for adjudication on merits. The petitioners could not dispute this view and instead requested a direction for the authority to decide the objections. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Executive Officer to consider and decide the objections within four weeks, without entertaining the merits of the demolition proceedings.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a petition is filed before the administrative authority has decided the objections raised against a demolition notice?
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- premature filing
- demolition notice
- Nagar Panchayat
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16404 of 2026
Ramesh Chandra Kesarwani And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Badri Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
notices dated 13.02.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4/Executive Officer, Nagar
Panchayat Mauaaima, District Prayagraj (Annexure-7 to this writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents not to proceed with the demolition proceedings in pursuance
of the impugned notices dated 13.02.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4."
3. We have perused the impugned notice dated 13.02.2026 issued by
respondent no. 3 directing the petitioner to submit his objections. The
petitioner has already filed his reply dated 18.02.2026. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that after submission of the reply by the petitioner, no order
has yet been passed. Hence, at this stage, the present writ petition is
premature.
4. Upon a query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could
not dispute the aforesaid position and prays that a suitable direction may be
issued to respondent no. 3 to decide the objections of the petitioner.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondent no. 3-Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Mauaima,
District Prayagraj to consider and decide the objections of the petitioner
WRIC No. 16404 of 2026
2
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall annex a
photocopy of the objection dated 18.02.2026 along with a certified copy of
this order before the concerned authority.
6. It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is
upon the respondent no. 3 to decide the objection of the petitioner after
considering the relevant Acts, Rules, Government Orders, Judicial
pronouncement made by the Court as well as facts of the case.
May 6, 2026
Gaurav
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…