Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Basant Kumar Batham And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 October, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188677-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 35294 of 2025   
 
   Basant Kumar Batham And 4 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Pankaj Agarwal   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 29
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.  

HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.3;
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pass afresh order in the light of judgment and order dated 20.5.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Aligarh in proceeding under Section 34 of the Act 1996;"

3. In view of the analysis and for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by Division Bench in WRIT - C No. - 26529 of 2025 (Ramashankar Yadav And Another vs. Union Of India And 3 Others), we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are so advised, within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.

4. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claim or the adequacy of compensation awarded. These issues are left open to be decided independently by the appropriate forum under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 proceedings, if filed.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 28, 2025 NLY