# Mrs. Manju Rakesh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 558
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38488 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mrs-manju-rakesh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52895
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioners , homebuyers
in the Knights Court project by Jaiprakash
associates Ltd. filed petitions due to delay
in possession of their flats-The UPRERA
had earlier directed the builder to either
hand over possession within 45 days or
refund the amount with interest-Due to
non-compliance,
recovery
certificates
were
issued-Subsequently
the
builder
entered insolvency proceedings under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC),
1 All. Mrs. Manju Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
and a Resolution Professionals(RP) was
appointed-The petitioners, now creditors
in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process(CIRP) challenged decisions made
by
the
Committee
of
Creditors(COC)
arguing their claims for possession were
not
properly
considered-Held,
The
UPRERA orders were valid, and the
petitioner had previously consented to a
rehabilitation
plan-Interference
in
Insolvency proceedings under Article 226
was not justified as the resolutions plan
was
still
under
consideration-The
Petitioners should seek relief within the
CIRP framework.(Para 1 to 19)

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granted to the petitioner after being
confronted
with
the
three
member
committee report. As the same was not
done, we are of the view that the principles
of natural justice have been violated.

5. In light of the same, without going
into the merits of the case, we quash and
set aside the impugned order dated October
10, 2024 with a direction upon the
authority concerned to grant an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter,
pass a reasoned order. The entire process
should be completed within a period of two
months from date. We make it clear that no
adjournment shall be granted to the
petitioner.

6.
In
the
meantime,
since
the
impugned order has been quashed and set
aside, the petitioner shall not be considered
to be blacklisted and it may participate in
Government's tender, in accordance with
law.

7. A note of caution is also required to
be provided herein. The judgements of the
Supreme Court and this Court have laid
down the law that the punishment of
blacklisting is required to be imposed upon
a person only in rare cases, as the same is
extremely harsh and stringent that deprives
a person of his right to carry on business.
Many a time, it appears that the authorities
are using the tool of blacklisting as a
mechanism for extraneous reasons. Such
practices are deprecated by this Court. It is
to be further noted that the period of
blacklisting has to be proportionate to the
fault committed by the person upon whom
the blacklisting is being done.

8. The above comments in the
foregoing paragraph are only in the nature
of obiter dicta and should act as guiding
principles to the authorities before passing
the order of blacklisting.

9. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, both the writ petitions are
disposed of.

10. As we have not gone into the
merits of the case, all the issues shall be left
open before the authority concerned.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 558
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 38488 of 2024
With
Writ-C No. 38495 of 2024 & 38521 of 2024

Mrs. Manju Rakesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravi Kant, Vatsala

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ankit Prakash, Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
C.S.C., Mohd. Afzal

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioners , homebuyers
in the Knights Court project by Jaiprakash
associates Ltd. filed petitions due to delay
in possession of their flats-The UPRERA
had earlier directed the builder to either
hand over possession within 45 days or
refund the amount with interest-Due to
non-compliance,
recovery
certificates
were
issued-Subsequently
the
builder
entered insolvency proceedings under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC),
1 All. Mrs. Manju Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
and a Resolution Professionals(RP) was
appointed-The petitioners, now creditors
in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process(CIRP) challenged decisions made
by
the
Committee
of
Creditors(COC)
arguing their claims for possession were
not
properly
considered-Held,
The
UPRERA orders were valid, and the
petitioner had previously consented to a
rehabilitation
plan-Interference
in
Insolvency proceedings under Article 226
was not justified as the resolutions plan
was
still
under
consideration-The
Petitioners should seek relief within the
CIRP framework.(Para 1 to 19)

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohammed Enterprised (Tanzania) Ltd. Vs
Farooq Ali Khan & ors.(2025) SCC Online SC 23

2. Committee of Creditors of KSK Mahanadi
Power Co. Ltd. VS UPPCL & ors. (2024) SCC
OnLine SC4013

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Ms Vatsala, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri Ankit Prakash, learned
counsel for respondent no.2, Sri Rohan
Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have
agreed that all the writ petitions are based on
similar set of facts and have sought similar
reliefs, and that they may be heard and
decided together.

3. The petitioners/home buyers claim to
have been allotted residential flats in project
'Knights Court' - Jaypee Greens Wish Town,
Sector-128, Noida, Uttar Pradesh developed
by
Builder-Respondent
no.3/Jaiprakash
Associates Ltd. Aggrieved by the delay in
completion of the project and handing over of
possession of the flats in question, the
petitioners in Writ-C No.38488 and Writ-C
No.38521 of 2024, filed complaints before
the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory
Authority1, which were allowed in terms of
the orders dated 6.5.2019, with a direction to
respondent no.3 to handover possession
within a period of 45 days from the date of
the order, and in case it was unable to do so,
to refund the amount deposited together with
interest.

4. It is stated that respondent no.3Builder neither handed over possession of the
residential flats in question, nor refunded the
amount, hence, in regard to the petitioners in
Writ-C No.38488 and Writ-C No.38521 of
2024, recovery certificates, bearing dates
18.12.2020 and 10.1.2020 were issued by the
UPRERA. An agreement dated 22.1.2021
was entered into between respondent no.3Builder and the Association of Home Buyers
of the Project, for completion of project and
handing over possession to all the home
buyers under the provisions of the UPRERA.
Thereafter, an order of rehabilitation under
Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 20162 was passed by the
UPRERA, directing completion of project
and delivery of possession, within a specified
time period. It has been asserted in Writ-C
No.38488 of 2024 that upon consent being
accorded by the petitioners, on 31.3.2021, an
order was passed by the UPRERA, directing
that recovery certificate issued pursuant to the
order dated 6.5.2019 be kept in abeyance.
The petitioners in Writ-C No.38521 of 2024
have also stated that they accorded their
consent for completion of project and taking
of possession consequent to the agreement
dated 22.1.2021.

5. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38495
of 2024, also filed a complaint before the
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
UPRERA, which was decided by means of
an order dated 27.7.2021 wherein, keeping
in view the order of rehabilitation which
had been passed earlier, a direction was
issued for refund of the amount on
completion of the project after 30.4.2022. It
is stated that due to non-compliance of the
order by respondent no.3, the UPRERA
issued
a
recovery
certificate
dated
22.5.2024,
which
has
remained
unexecuted.

6. In due course of time, insolvency
proceedings
were
initiated
against
respondent no.3-Builder on a petition filed
by the Banks/Financial Institutions and a
Resolution Professional3 was appointed by
the National Company Law Tribunal4 to
manage the affairs of respondent no.3Builder.

7. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38488
and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024 submitted
their claims on 15.6.2024 and 21.6.2024
respectively under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy (Insolvency Resolution Process
for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 20165.
The petitioners in Writ-C No.38495 of
2024 are stated to have sent an e-mail to
the RP on 3.11.2024 for 'conversion of
request from refund to possession' of
their allotted residential flats. The claims
of the petitioners along with other home
buyers of the project are stated to have
been
taken
up
by
the
Authorized
Representative6 of the home buyers in
the
meeting
of
the
Committee
of
Creditors7. A grievance is sought to be
raised that despite the claim of the
petitioners and other home buyers having
been taken up by the AR in the meeting
of COC, in the presence of the RP, their
claims with regard to handing over
possession of the residential flats have
not been accorded due consideration.

8. The petitioners in Writ-C No.38488
and Writ-C No.38521 of 2024 have sought
quashing of the orders dated 6.5.2019
passed by the Respondent no.2/UPRERA
to the extent it directs refund of the amount
which, according to the petitioners, were
never sought by them. The petitioners in
Writ-C No.38495 of 2024, have similarly
prayed for quashing of the order dated
27.7.2021 passed by the UPRERA, on their
complaint, to the extent a direction for
refund of the amount had been issued.
Further prayer has been made in all the
three writ petitions for quashing and setting
aside
decisions
dated
30.08.2024,
27.09.2024, 25.10.2024 and Note on offer
of possession issued by the Resolution
Professional of Respondent no.3/Builder.
Also a similar prayer has been made in all
the three writ petitions to direct Respondent
no.3/Builder
through
its
Resolution
Professional
to
immediately
offer
possession of the respective residential
units to the Petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has sought to argue that the orders dated
6.5.2019 and 27.7.2021 passed by the
UPRERA to the extent it directs refund of
the amount, are erroneous since the relief
with regard to the refund was never sought
by the petitioners. It has been further
contended
that
the
decisions
dated
30.8.2014, 27.9.2024
and 25.10.2024,
taken at the meetings of the COC, are liable
to be set aside, since in terms thereof, the
RP has refused to offer possession of the
residential unit which had been allotted by
the Builder to the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has pointed out that the order
dated 6.5.2019 passed by the UPRERA, on
the complaint of the petitioners, in terms of
which a direction was issued to handover
1 All. Mrs. Manju Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
possession of the residential flats, within a
specified time period, and in case of failure
to do so, to refund the amount is, in fact, in
favour of the petitioners. It is submitted
that the challenge, which is sought to be
raised against the aforesaid order to the
extent it relates to refund of the amount,
which was a direction issued in case the
Builder failed to handover possession
within a stipulated time period, cannot be
entertained
at
this
belated
stage
particularly, in view of the agreement
entered into between the home buyers and
the builder subsequently. It is also
submitted that the aforesaid order passed
by the UPRERA would be subject to the
statutory remedy of appeal and a relief in
regard to the same cannot be sought by
means of the present writ petitions.

11. As regards the other reliefs sought
in the present writ petitions, it is submitted
that the decisions taken at the meetings of
the COC, held on 30.8.2024, 27.9.2024 and
25.10.2024, cannot be challenged at this
stage since no final conclusions have been
arrived at and the resolution plan is yet to
be finalized and approved. It is submitted
that the direction which is being sought to
respondent no.3-Builder through RP to
offer possession of the residential units,
cannot be entertained at this stage since the
resolution plan is yet to be finalized.

12. It is not in dispute that the order
dated 6.5.2019 passed by the UPRERA was
on the complaint made by the petitioners
and in terms of the said order, a direction
was issued to handover possession of the
residential units within a stipulated period
of time, and in case of failure to do so, to
refund the amount. The recovery certificate
was issued consequent to the aforesaid
order and it was in view of the consent
accorded by the petitioners in furtherance
of the agreement entered into between the
Builder and the Association of Home
Buyers that the recovery certificate was
directed to be kept in abeyance. The
challenge which is now sought to be raised
against the order dated 6.5.2019, that the
order directs the refund of the amount,
appears to be an after thought and cannot
be entertained at this belated stage in a writ
petition, bypassing the statutory alternative
remedy of an appeal under the Act, 2016.

13. Insofar as the other prayers,
including the relief sought for setting aside
the decisions dated 30.8.2024, 27.9.2024
and 25.10.2024, which are essentially the
minutes of the meetings of COC, also
cannot be entertained at this stage. This
would be particularly for the reason that the
record of the meetings are indicative of the
deliberations between the parties with no
final decision having been arrived with
regard to the resolution plan, which would
be required to be approved by the
Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, it is not
disputed that the home buyers including the
petitioners, are duly represented by their
authorized representative in the meetings of
COC with the RP, and the claims put
forward on behalf of the home buyers are
being considered and final conclusion is yet
to be arrived at. It is also not disputed that
the petitioners along with other home
buyers, as financial creditors, have duly
submitted their claims before the RP, in the
ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process8.

14. The importance of concluding
CIRP proceedings has been emphasised by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Mohammed
Enterprised (Tanzania) Ltd vs. Farooq
Ali Khan and others wherein, while
entertaining appeals against a judgment of
the High Court exercising power of judicial
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
review interdicting Corporate Insolvency
Process, it was observed that an unjustified
interference with the proceedings initiated
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code-201610, breaches the discipline of
law. It was further stated that the IBC,
being a complete Code in itself, exercise of
supervisory and judicial review powers by
the High Court would demand a rigorous
scrutiny of judicious application.

15. A similar view had been taken in
an earlier decision in Committee of
Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Co.
Ltd.
vs.
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Ltd. and others, where the
Supreme Court underlined the importance
of concluding the CIRP and took exception
to the High Court deferring a CIRP in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

16. In view of the aforesaid legal
position, we are of the opinion that the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, being a
complete Code in itself, with sufficient
checks and balances remedial avenues and
appeals, any interference by the High Court
in exercise of its extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
which may have the effect interdicting the
CIRP, would not be permissible as a matter
of course.

17. Having regard to the aforesaid
and in particular, taking note of the fact
that the petitioners have already filed
their
claims
in
the
pending CIRP
proceedings, we are not inclined to
entertain the writ petitions, in respect of
the reliefs sought, at this stage.

18. It would be open to the petitioners
to seek appropriate legal remedies as may
be available under the law.

19. The writ petitions are, accordingly,
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 40479 of 2018

Ram Sajiwan Kori ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Kinkar Shukla, Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
Vijay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Diwakar Singh, Govind Kumar
Saxena, Himanshu Shekhar

(A) Administrative Law - Cancellation of
Fair Price Shop licence - Principle of
Natural Justice - An order of cancellation
of a fair price shop licence must be passed
after giving an opportunity of hearing and
must be based on independent findings
rather
than
reiteration
of
previous
conclusions. (Para - 2,4,6,12,13,14)

Petitioner's
fair
price
shop
licence
was
suspended on 25.3.2006 - appeal against
suspension was pending - licence was cancelled
on 25.5.2006 - No opportunity of hearing was
granted to petitioner - Subsequent appeals were
dismissed - matter was ultimately remanded by
Supreme Court for fresh consideration by SDM -
SDM reiterated the earlier cancellation order
without independent findings - hence petition.
(Para - 2 to 5 )

HELD: - Since the order of the Supreme Court
was not complied with by the SDM and the
appellate authority, the orders passed by both
authorities
were
set
aside.
Matter
was
remanded to the SDM for taking decision afresh