Allahabad High Court
SHAILEDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is allowed, directing the Municipal Commissioner to decide the petitioner's reply within four weeks and staying any coercive action for six weeks.
Summary
Petitioner Shailedra Kumar challenged a notice dated 14‑08‑2026 issued by the Varanasi Municipal Corporation ordering demolition or sealing of his residential premises at Arazi No. 96, Mauza Hukulganj. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and a writ of mandamus to restrain any dispossession or demolition without due process. The respondents argued that the petitioner had already filed a detailed reply on 20‑08‑2026 and that the Municipal Commissioner would decide the matter shortly. The Court, after hearing both sides, found no merit in continuing the coercive action pending a decision on the reply. Accordingly, it directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide the petitioner's reply within four weeks and stayed any coercive action for six weeks. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued by the Varanasi Municipal Corporation can be quashed on the ground of procedural impropriety.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain demolition or sealing of the petitioner's possession pending a decision on his reply.
- Whether the court can direct the Municipal Commissioner to decide the petitioner's reply within a specified time and stay coercive action.
Subjects
- certiorari
- mandamus
- municipal corporation
- possession
- stay of execution
- administrative notice
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35318 of 2026
Shailedra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avneesh Tripathi, Vaibhav Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent no.1 and Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the
respondent nos.2 & 3.
2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the
following prayers :-
"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned notice bearing Letter No. 1579/3/स०न०आ०/राजस्व/2026-27
dated 14.08.2026 issued by the Varanasi Municipal Corporation
(Annexure-1);
2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, demolish or seal the
residential premises, or otherwise interfere with his settled possession
over Arazi No. 96, Mauza Hukulganj, Varanasi, except by authority of
law and after following due process."
3. It is argued by Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.2 & 3 that in response to the notice dated 14.08.2026 a detailed reply
has already been submitted by the petitioner on 20.08.2026, copy of
which is appended as annexure-8 to the writ petition. It is further argued
that respondent no.2-Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi Municipal
Corporation, Varanasi will take a decision on the aforesaid reply
expeditiously.
WRIC No. 35318 of 2026
2
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition
is being dispose of at the admission stage itself.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent no.2 is
directed to take a decision on the aforesaid reply submitted by the
petitioner dated 20.08.2026, most expeditiously and preferably within a
period of four weeks from today.
6. The writ petition is allowed.
7. For a period of six weeks from today or till the time decision is taken in
the matter, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against
the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 14.08.2026 issued by the
respondent no.3.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
September 8, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…