Allahabad High Court
VIKRAM PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court disposed of the petition, refusing to grant mandamus and directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.3.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikram Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of U.P. and others to return Rs.29,42,500 as security deposit and Rs.1,17,700 as stamp paper with 18% interest. The petition had been pending for over 16 years and the State failed to file a counter‑affidavit. The petitioner claimed to have made a representation on 26‑07‑2010, but no decision was taken by the respondents. The Court, noting the inordinate delay and the absence of a counter‑affidavit, declined to issue the writ and instead ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3 within two weeks, to be decided within six weeks. The petition was therefore disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the return of the security deposit and stamp paper amount with interest.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed on account of procedural delay and the State's failure to file a counter‑affidavit.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- security deposit
- stamp paper
- representation
- procedural delay
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 63133 of 2010
Vikram Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : D.S.Parmar, J.P. Singh, L.M. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.K.Pandey, Sant Ram Sharma
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred inter-alia seeking following
relief:-
"Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to return the entire amount of Rs.29,42,500=00 towards
Security Deposit and Rs.1,17,700=00 towards Stamp Paper, to the
petitioner along with 18% interest."
3. Despite time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State.
The matter is pending from last more than 16 years..
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has
filed a representation before the respondents on 26.07.2010 but no
decision has been taken by the authorities concerned on the said
representation.
5. In such view of the matter, in the interest of justice the present writ
petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the respondent no.3 ventilating his grievance within
next two weeks, which shall be decided by respondent no.3 strictly in
accordance with law within a further period of six weeks.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
September 9, 2026
S.P.
Digitally signed by :-
SANJAY PURI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…