Allahabad High Court
/7117/2025 of M/S AMETEK BUILDTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. THRU. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ANMOL YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. INFRASTRUCTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER on 12 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7117 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7117 of 2025
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, 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 Sri Sri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made for directing respondent No.1 i.e. the State to decide the revision petition said to have been preferred by the petitioner, dated 31.10.2025, expeditiously.
3. Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made in this petition, the writ petition is allowed with the consent of parties with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and to make earnest endeavour to decide the same at the earliest.
4. It is also provided that the application dated 31.10.2025 seeking grant of interim relief moved by the petitioner shall also be decided within a period of three weeks from today, and till the decision of the application for interim relief, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents.
5. It is made clear that on passing of appropriate orders in the revision as directed above, the protection granted by this Court shall cease to operate. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) December 12, 2025 V. Sinha Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Upadhyay
M/S Ametek Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Anmol Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Industrial Development And Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench