Allahabad High Court
PRATEEK GROUP BAKERY INDUSTRYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK SARAN
Holding
The petition is misconceived because the relief sought relates to a private dispute beyond respondent No.3's administrative jurisdiction and therefore cannot be granted.
Summary
Prateek Group Bakery Industry filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents No.2 and No.3 not to interfere with construction on a plot in Deoria and to decide the petitioner's representation dated 16‑03‑2026 and 22‑04‑2026. The State's standing counsel argued that the petition actually concerned a dispute with private respondents No.4 and No.5, which is not within the administrative jurisdiction of respondent No.3. The Court examined the submissions and the record and found that the relief sought pertained to a private matter beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Accordingly, the Court held the petition to be misconceived and dismissed it, noting that the petitioner may pursue remedies available under common law. The order was pronounced on 6 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing respondent No.3 to refrain from interfering with construction and to decide the petitioner's representation.
- Whether the dispute raised in the representation falls within the administrative jurisdiction of respondent No.3.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- jurisdiction
- administrative law
- private dispute
- High Court
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17890 of 2026
Prateek Group Bakery Industry
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madan Ji Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Nath Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief
of Sri Madan Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir
Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been referred with the following relief:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 not to interfere in the
construction work over the Gata No.13, area 0.182 hectare,
situated in Village Mungraila, Tappa Ballia, Pargana Salempur,
Majhauli, Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria and further direct the
respondent no.2 and 3 to consider and decide the grievance of the
petitioner submitted through representation dated 16.03.2026 and
22.04.2026 within some stipulated period of time as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that although the
petitioner has prayed for an innocuous relief regarding representation
to be decided by the authority but in actual the petition is in regard to
settle the dispute from the respondent nos.4 and 5 which is evident
from the prayer made in the representation dated 22.04.2026 itself.
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer
contained in the representation dated 22.04.2026 relates to some
dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents, a matter
over which Respondent No. 3 lacks jurisdiction on administrative
side.
5. In such view of the matter, the prayer so made in the instant writ
WRIC No. 17890 of 2026
2
petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is mis-conceived and is
accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to
seek such remedy available under common law.
May 6, 2026
Deepika
(Vivek Saran,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPIKA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…