Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

FRENCH APARTMENT OWNER ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition was disposed without granting any writ, with a direction to the water authority to decide the pending representation within eight weeks.

Summary

The French Apartment Owner Association filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the water supply authority (respondent no. 4) to bifurcate water charges against a private respondent (no. 3), to accept charges from 27‑09‑2024 without penal interest, and to restrain coercive recovery measures. The petition also requested expeditious consideration of a representation dated 30‑01‑2026 pending before the authority. The respondents argued that the pending representation would be decided promptly, rendering the writ unnecessary. The Court, noting that the parties consented, declined to issue any writ and instead ordered the authority to decide the representation within eight weeks, after giving an opportunity to all stakeholders, including respondent no. 3. The Court expressly stated that it did not adjudicate the merits of the petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the water authority to bifurcate charges and waive penal interest.
  • Whether the Court should restrain the authority from taking coercive measures against the apartment owners.
  • Whether notice to the private respondent (no. 3) is required in the proceedings.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • mandamus
  • water charges
  • bifurcation of charges
  • coercive measures
  • expeditious decision
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                             WRIT - C No. - 16717 of 2026

French Apartment Owner Association
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Sunil Chaudhary
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 learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Mrs. Anjali Upadhya has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos.
2 & 4.

2. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed, notice need not to
be issued to the private respondent no. 3.

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs.

     "(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
     respondent no. 4 to bifurcate the charges of water outstanding against the
     respondent no. 3 and charge the same separately from the petitioner from
     the date of possession i.e. 27.09.2024;


     (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
     respondent no. 4 to accept the water charges from the date of possession
     to the apartment owners i.e. 27.09.2024 without any penal interest or
     charges;


     (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
     the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the members of
     the petitioner association in default of payment of outstanding towards
     the respondent no. 3;
                                                                                                      WRIC No. 16717 of 2026
                                                                          2


                                            (iv) 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;
                                            and


                                            (v) Award costs of the petition to the Petitioner throughout."

                                    4. In pith and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
                                    representation dated 30.01.2026 pending before the respondent no. 4 may be
                                    decided expeditiously.

                                    5. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent very fairly states that in
                                    case the aforementioned representation is pending consideration, the same
                                    will be considered and decided expeditiously by the Authority concerned.

                                    6. In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in
                                    keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ
                                    petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent no. 4 to
                                    decide the aforementioned representation of the petitioner strictly in
                                    accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within
                                    eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before him
                                    but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter
                                    specially respondent no. 3. Needless to say, we have not adverted on merit of
                                    the case.




                                                           (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    A.K.Srivastava




Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
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.