WRIC/32119/2025 of RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 17 September 2026

1. It is alleged by the petitioner that plot no. C/84, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad, was allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter when the possession of the plot was not handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad, which by its order dated 6.7.2000 directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to return whatever money the petitioner had deposited, with an interest of 12%.

2. It is further case of the petitioner that instead of complying the order of the District Consumer Forum, the Ghaziabad Development Authority kept demanding certain amounts which were consequentially also deposited by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for Ghaziabad Development Authority Sri Abhimanyu Singh Chauhan has, however, stated that all such documents which the petitioner had attached with the writ petition indicating that the Ghaziabad Development Authority was demanding money are fake and fabricated documents. The paragraph no. 6 of the personal affidavit is being referred here as under:- "THAT, on the basis of the available original records of the case, it is specifically stated here that the above referred documents, as relied upon and appended by the Petitioner as Annexure Nos. 08, 09, 10, 11 and 12, to the writ petition, are nothing else, but, only fake and manufactured Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhimanyu Singh Chauhan, C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra Rakesh Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)

documents."

4. He, further, submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of the District Consumer Forum before the State Consumer Forum where no order was passed in his favour. Now, the said order has been challenged before the National Consumer Forum and the matter is pending before the National Consumer Forum.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Dharmendra Kumar, Sri Abhimanya Singh Chauhan and the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the view that complicated questions of fact are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

6. We, however, provide that the petitioner may continue to pursue his remedy before the consumer forum.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2026 PK WRIC No. 32119 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad