Allahabad High Court
/12134/2025 of M/S GREENBAY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED THRU. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Vs STATE OF U.P.THRU.ITS PRIN.SECY.DEPTT. OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND INUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LKO.AND ANOTHER on 12 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 12134 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. We have heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Prashant Chandra, learned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 12134 of 2025
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, 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. We have heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2- YEIDA.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "a) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no.2 to decide the Representations dated 29.10.2025 and 03.12.2025 preferred by the petitioner seeking permission for execution of sub-lease deed in favour of the allottees, in accordance with the policy for Legacy Stalled Real Estate Project issued vide Government Order dated 21.12.2023 by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
b) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the Policy dated 21.12.2023 filed as Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition and he says that he made a representation in this regard to the respondent no.2, which has not been decided till date.
4. Sri Prashant Chandra on the basis of instructions says that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikey Dubey, Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh M/S Greenbay Infrastructure Private Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Mr.Amit Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru.Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Infrastructure And Inustrial Development, Lko.And Another .....Respondent(s)
representation of the petitioner has been decided on 21.11.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the representation dated 03.12.2025 has been made, thereafter, which perhaps has not been decided.
6. A copy of the order has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner and after going through the same learned counsel for the petitioner says that the writ petition has become infructuous.
7. The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. December 12, 2025 N.PAL WRIC No. 12134 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench