# Ajeet Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 431
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7426 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajeet-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52853
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C S.C.

Issue for consideration
 The key issue was whether the ARTO could
validly restrict the registration of new Erickshaws and E-autos exclusively to permanent
residents of Lucknow.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
14, 19(1)(g) , 21 and 226- An administrative
restriction on the right to carry on business
based solely on a person's status as a nonpermanent resident of a city is discriminatory
and violates fundamental rights-The court
quashed the portion of the impugned order that
restricted
registrations
to
permanent
residents.(E-6)

Held,
The court held that the restriction was arbitrary
and
lacked
reasonable
classification.
the
authorities argued that non-permanent residents
(living in rented accommodation) were difficult
to track for serving notices regarding fitness
certificates. The court found this reasoning
legally insufficient and unconstitutional. (Para 6
to 10)

List of Acts
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
E-rickshaw registration, Permanent residence,
Livelihood,
Arbitrary
classification,
Fitness
certificate, Administrative restrictions.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 7426 of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 26.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Ajeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Shraddha Tripathi

Advs. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

## Text

11 All. Ajeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
a competing business which may have an
adverse impact on his profitability cannot
give rise to a legal wrong. Such actions are
clearly barred on the principle of damnum
sine injuria which essentially holds that the
law does not recognize any remedy unless
it is established that the person had
suffered a legal wrong or to put it
differently a wrong which is recognised or
is recognizable in law."

10. Further co-ordinate benches of this
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
39125 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Seva Kendra
Vs. State of U.P. & ors.) and Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 15351 of 2011 (Manoj
Kumar Vs. Union of India and others)
delivered on 22nd August, 2007 and 14th
March, 2011 respectively held that when
the petitioner wants that a competitor
should not carry on any similar business
near his business place, such type of
disputes between the parties can be
adjudicated by the civil court provided any
appropriate suit for injunction is filed. This
Court can not interfere with the same
particularly when the question of supplying
essential commodities is involved.

11. Under the circumstances, we are of
the view that the petitioner has no locus to
maintain present writ petition as the
petitioner does not fall within the definition
of "aggrieved person". Hence, the present
writ petition at the instance of the petitioner
is not maintainable.

12. In view of facts narrated above, the
present writ petition is dismissed leaving it
open for the petitioner to avail a remedy
before other forums available to him under
law.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 431
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 7426 of 2025

Ajeet Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shraddha Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for consideration
 The key issue was whether the ARTO could
validly restrict the registration of new Erickshaws and E-autos exclusively to permanent
residents of Lucknow.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
14, 19(1)(g) , 21 and 226- An administrative
restriction on the right to carry on business
based solely on a person's status as a nonpermanent resident of a city is discriminatory
and violates fundamental rights-The court
quashed the portion of the impugned order that
restricted
registrations
to
permanent
residents.(E-6)

Held,
The court held that the restriction was arbitrary
and
lacked
reasonable
classification.
the
authorities argued that non-permanent residents
(living in rented accommodation) were difficult
to track for serving notices regarding fitness
certificates. The court found this reasoning
legally insufficient and unconstitutional. (Para 6
to 10)

List of Acts
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
E-rickshaw registration, Permanent residence,
Livelihood,
Arbitrary
classification,
Fitness
certificate, Administrative restrictions.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 7426 of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 26.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Ajeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Shraddha Tripathi

Advs. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shraddha Tripathi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of State-respondents.

2. Since, all the four writ petitions are
dealing with the same issue, we have dealt
with the same conjointly.

3. These four writ petitions have been
filed challenging the order dated February
5, 2025, wherein the Assistant Regional
Transport
Officer,
Administration
Lucknow has restricted the registration of
new E-rickshaws and E-autos (hereinafter referred to as "E-Rickshaws") for
two categories of people. Firstly, Erickshaw registration is not to be granted
to a person, who is already having a
registration of E-rickshaw in his favour
and
secondly,
new
E-rickshaw
registration should only be granted to the
persons, who are permanently residing in
Lucknow.

4. The petitioners in the several writ
petitions have challenged the second
portion of the order, wherein registration of
new E-rickshaws is restricted to only
permanent residents of Lucknow.

5. On an earlier occasion, direction
was given to the authorities to file an
affidavit with regard to the reason for such
a restriction. In some of the matters,
affidavits have been filed and upon perusal
of the said affidavit, we find that the reason
given for imposing such a restriction is as
follows:-

"7. That in district Lucknow
more than 70% owners of the E
Rickshaw and E Auto have not taken
Fitness certificate and running those
unfit vehicles on road causing great
threat to the person using the same, and
moreover the owners of E rickshaws and
E auto have got registered their vehicles
by giving affidavit as they are residing
on rent and shown their local address of
that rented house, but when they left
their rented house it is very difficult to
serve any Notice to them relating to end
of Fitness or other, and the notices
returned to the Office of the issuing
authority."

6. On perusal of the above paragraph
stated in the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.2 in Writ-C No.4048 of
2025, it appears that the authorities are
having trouble in serving notices to persons
who are not permanently residing in
Lucknow city, as some of these persons,
who get registration for E-rickshaw, are
giving addresses, wherein they are residing
on rent. The authorities submit that it is
very difficult to serve any notice upon such
persons relating to end of fitness certificate
or other notices.
11 All. Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433

7. The rationale that has been provided
by the authorities for depriving persons,
who are not residing in Lucknow but are
carrying on business in Lucknow, from
getting a registration of E-rickshaw is
without any basis in law and is clearly a
violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Any
discrimination that is done without having
a reasonable classification cannot be
countenanced by this Court and the Court is
duty bound to strike down such a
classification.

8. We are of the view that for
controlling the number of E-rickshaws in
the city, several other measures can be
taken by the authorities, wherein the
authorities can restrict the number of
registration certificates to be provided in a
particular year. Furthermore, stricter action
should be taken for impounding of vehicles
that are not having proper and valid fitness
certificates.
However,
the
reasoning
provided for not allowing persons not
having a permanent residence in Lucknow
is clearly arbitrary in nature as it would
patently infringe upon the rights of the
persons, who come from nearby places to
earn their livelihood in the city of
Lucknow. Lucknow being the capital city
of the State of Uttar Pradesh results in the
confluence of the people from villages in
all parts of Uttar Pradesh and encourages
people to come to the city to earn their
livelihood. A restriction such as the one
that has been provided for in the impugned
order would act as a hindrance to the same.
In fact, the authorities should allow
Lucknow to be a melting pot, where people
of diverse castes, religions and from
different strata of society are allowed to
come and work so as to encourage them to
participate in the prosperity of the capital
city.

9. In light of the same, the impugned
order insofar as it relates to this Erickshaws to be issued only to permanent
residents is quashed and aside.

10. With the above directions, all the
four writ petitions are disposed of.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 433
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 21944 of 2022

Yogendra Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether a petitioner can
be penalized with the cancellation of an arms
license and seizure of weapon without the
authorities meeting the essential requirements
of Rule 32 of the Arms Rule, 2016.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Indian Arms Act- Section
17(3), 18 & Arms Rules 2016-Rule 32Compliance of Rule 32-The petitioner
license was suspended following a report
from the local police in 2020-No evidence
that the petitioner had brandished or
discharged the firearm in a public place or
failed to carry it in proper protective gear
as required by Rule 32-The authorities
failed to indicate which specific sub-rule
was violated-The court ordered to restore