Allahabad High Court
PARVATI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the pending authority to decide the representation within sixty days.
Summary
Petitioner Parvati Devi, a sugarcane grower, filed a writ petition alleging non‑payment of dues by a private company (respondent No.6) and contended that a representation filed before respondent No.2 was still pending. The petitioner claimed that no payment had been received, while respondent No.5 asserted that 50% of the amount had already been paid. The Court noted that the matter was sub‑judice before respondent No.2 and that the representation needed to be decided. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation within sixty days of the order. The petition was therefore not entertained on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a representation on the same grievance is pending before another authority
- Whether the Court can direct the pending authority to decide the representation within a specified time
Subjects
- writ petition
- non‑payment of dues
- sugarcane grower
- representation pending
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17340 of 2026
Parvati Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babita Upadhyay, Sanjeev Kumar Gaur
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the
subject matter of the petition is pending consideration before the
respondent no.2 by way of the representation which is yet to be decided.
The matter relates to the non-payment of dues to the petitioner who is a
sugarcane grower by respondent no.6 which is a private company to
which sugarcane has been supplied.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that 50% amount has
already been paid to the petitioner which is disputed by learned counsel
for the petitioner who says that the petitioner has not received so far.
4. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with
request to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation
given by the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date of
communication of this order.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
May 5, 2026
Gaurav Kuls
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…