Allahabad High Court
M/S SILVER CITY INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as it concerns an inter‑partner dispute, and the petitioner must raise its objections in the pending writ petition before the Division Bench.
Summary
The petitioner, M/s Silver City Infratech Pvt. Ltd., claimed to be part of a consortium and challenged a revision petition filed by another partner under Section 41(3) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, which the Revisional Authority allowed. The petitioner argued that the revision was filed without its consent and sought relief through a writ petition. The Court observed that the matter is an inter‑partner dispute within the consortium and not suitable for writ jurisdiction. It noted that a related writ petition (No.31068 of 2023) is already pending before a Division Bench, where the petitioner has the opportunity to intervene and raise its contentions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present writ petition, directing the petitioner to present its submissions in the pending case.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable for an inter‑partner dispute arising from a consortium agreement
- Whether the petitioner can raise its objections to the revision petition in the pending writ petition before the Division Bench
Legislation cited
- Urban Planning and Development Act — s. 41(3)
Subjects
- consortium dispute
- writ jurisdiction
- inter‑partner dispute
- revision petition
- Urban Planning and Development Act
- intervention
- division bench
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35577 of 2026
M/S Silver City Infratech Private Limited
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saumitra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gaurang Dwivedi, Mohd. Afzal
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P.Paul for
respondent no.4, Mohd. Afzal for respondent no.5 and Sri R.P.Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner has claimed to be a part of consortium and he is aggrieved that one of the
partners has filed a revision petition under the provisions of Section 41 (3) of Urban
Planning and Development Act, which was allowed by the Revisional Authority i.e.
State.
3. Now petitioner is aggrieved that said revision petition was filed without taking their
consent and they are objecting its outcome therefore, present writ petition has been
filed.
4. Court finds that it is an inter-se dispute between the partners of consortium which
cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
5. It has been informed that one of the partners of consortium has already filed a Writ
Petition No.31068 of 2023 for implementation of the impugned order which is
pending before Division Bench of this Court wherein the petitioner has already filed
an application for intervention and has all opportunity to raise his legally permissible
contention before the Division Bench, therefore, there is no legal ground to entertain
this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise all his
legally permissible submissions before Division Bench in the pending writ petition.
September 9, 2026
SB (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…