Allahabad High Court
WRIC/39971/2026 of RAJAN SADANA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 30 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39971 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39971 of 2026
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayer:-
(i) . issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar) to ensure the recovery of Rs.14,39,562.33/along with further interests, from the Respondent No. 3 (Promoter) in compliance of the Recovery Certificate dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure No. 3) issued under section 40 of the Act in Complaint No. NCR144/10/0068/2019 within a stipulated period;
3. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the respondent/respondents to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case respondent/respondents feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the recovery certificate dated 22.08.2025 issued by the respondent No.4, no action has been taken by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Gautam Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akashi Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal Rajan Sadana .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
Budh Nagar.
5. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that respondent No.2 will take a decision in the matter expeditiously.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law most expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order unless there is no legal impediment. October 1, 2026 saqlain WRIC No. 39971 of 2026 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad