M/S Rama Metal Industries Thru.Partner ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 25 September, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

M/S Rama Metal Industries Thru.Partner ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 25 September, 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-opposite parties no.1, 4 and 5 and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, who appears for opposite parties no.2 and 3-Lucknow Development Authority..

2. This wit petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

"a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 with respect to the property situated at Plot No. 68, Ambedkar Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.;

b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the approval granted by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority for re-entering upon the property situated at Plot No. 68, Ambedkar Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow, after summoning its original.

c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner with respect to the property situated at Plot No. 68, Ambedkar Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow."

3. When a mention of urgency was made and the matter was taken up yesterday, this Court has passed a detailed order. The relevant extract of which is quoted herein-below:-

?3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest i.e. M/s Prabha Metal Works had been given a lease in the year 1960 by Lucknow Mahapalika of Plot No. 68 in Industrial Area Scheme of Aishbagh, Lucknow for manufacture of aluminum utensils. The said lease initially for a period of 30 years, which was renewed further for two periods of 30 years i.e. till 2050 and that the petitioner has been paying lease rent regularly and has been utilizing the said plot for the purpose of manufacture of aluminum utensils, since the time plot no. 68 was allotted to him.

4. However, the Lucknow Development Authority out of some malicious intent has issued a show cause notice initially to the petitioner on 07.1.2025 saying that some officials of the Lucknow Development Authority had visited the plot no. 68 and found out of six godowns three were locked and one was being used for purpose of storage, one was being used for the purpose of storage of A.P.-3 brand grease and third one was being used for manufacturing of disposable paper cups. There was no machinery found relating to manufacture of aluminum utensils. The petitioner had replied to the said notice on 21.01.2025, but such reply has not been considered and by the order impugned which refers to some approval being granted by the Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority the right of re-entry on violation of lease conditions has been exercised and notice has been issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2025 by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority saying that the possession of the property in question be handed over on 26.09.2025 at 10:00 AM. A copy of the said notice has been endorsed to the Deputy Police Commissioner (West) and the Assistant Police Commissioner, Khala Bazar, the Station House Officer, Khala Bazar and other Officers of the State Government and the Lucknow Development Authority, so that they all are present and ensure peaceful handing over of plot no. 68 as aforesaid to the officials of the Lucknow Development Authority.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that they are still manufacturing aluminum utensils in plot no. 68, the reply has not been considered.

6. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is still manufacturing aluminum utensils and the godowns are used for storage of such utensils and for keeping the machinery etc. involved in manufacture of aluminum utensils, we feel it appropriate to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the Plot no. 68, Industrial Area, Aishbagh, Lucknow to find out and to report to the Court the correctness of the facts as mentioned in the writ petition.

7. We, therefore, appoint Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to go today itself at 05:00 PM. He will be accompanied by Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and other Officials of the Lucknow Development Authority, if need be, who would identify the plot no.68 of Industrial Area, Aishbagh, Lucknow for the purpose of conducting the commission by learned Advocate Commissioner. A report be submitted to this Court latest by 02:00 P.M. tomorrow i.e. on 25.09.2025.

8. Put up this case tomorrow, i.e. on 25.09.2025 at 02:15 P.M.

9. The petitioner shall cooperate in such inspection being done of his premises.

10. Learned counsel for both the parties shall communicate the gist of the order passed today to the parties and not wait for uploading of this order on the website of the Court.

11. Since Sri Rajesh Tiwari, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State will be working as our eyes and ears and hold the inspection for us, he will be entitled to Rs.11,000/- each as honorarium on part of the petitioner and on part of the Lucknow Development Authority.?

4. Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Rajesh Tewari, who has acted as Advocate-Commissioner on our behalf, has submitted a report with regard to the inspection he has carried out in presence of the Nazul Officer, Consolidation Officer, Ameen, counsel for the petitioner, counsel of the opposite parties no.2 and 3-Lucknow Development Authority and Adhish Mehrotra and Amogh Mehrotra, partners of M/s Rama Metal Industries. In the report, it is stated that immediately behind the plot in question, Plot No.68/1 exists, upon which a Community Centre is being construed by the Lucknow Development Authority. Site sketch/map was prepared by the Engineer of the Lucknow Development Authority in presence of all the above-named persons and it was found that total six rooms/halls were constructed on the said plot.

5. On inspection of Room No.1, which is approximately 1600 Sq.Ft. in size, it was found that the said room was being utilised for storing catering related items, including aluminum vessels, catering crockery, tables, steel boxes and other associated materials. Upon inquiry, it was informed by the petitioner that the aforementioned crockery, utensils and vessels are provided to caterers on rent.

6. On inspection of Room No.2, which is approximately 2000 Sf.Ft in size, it was found that the same was being used for manufacturing the paper tea cups. In the said room, seven Automatic Paper Cup Making Machines were found, out of which six machines were fully functional and one was under maintenance. The Supervisor, Vishal Malik informed that the machines are owned by Adhish Mehrotra.

7. On inspection of Room No.3, which is approximately 5000 Sf.Ft in size, it was found that the same was being used as a warehouse for storing the Premium Aluminum Composite Panels. Upon inquiry, it was informed by the petitioner that the said panels are procured from Raipur and are subsequently sold in the market and they are used for manufacturing of aluminum doors and walls. The petitioner further clarified that he is not engaged in the manufacturing of these panels, rather the said panels are used solely for trading purposes. There were two office cabins inside the said room/hall, which were being utilised by the petitioner for sale and purchase transactions relating to the Premium Aluminum Composite Panels.

8. On inspection of Room No.4, which is approximately 6000 Sf.Ft in size, it was found that the same was being used as a warehouse for storing disposable goods viz. paper cups, paper plates, wooden spoons, aluminum foiled coated plates, aluminum foiled coated disposable containers, aluminum foils and other similar disposable materials used in the catering. Upon enquiry, it was informed by the petitioner that they do not manufacture the aforementioned items, rather the same are procured from other manufacturers and subsequently sold in the market.

9. On inspection of Room No.5, which is approximately 1100 Sf.Ft in size, it was found that there were two separate entrances and inside the said room, there were two enclosed rooms. At the right-hand corner of the room, one Shaping Machine was found to be installed. Upon enquiry, it was informed by the petitioner that the said machine is used for shaping the aluminum lids. Photographs of such aluminum hard sheets kept in the said room have also been filed as annexure to the report.

10. On inspection of Room No.6, which is approximately 5000 Sf.Ft in size, it was found that the same was being used as a warehouse for storing heavy-duty wires manufactured by Havells Company. Upon enquiry, it was informed by the petitioner that he is also a distributor of the Havells Company and stated that all the wires stored therein contain aluminum metal inside.

11. The conclusion as mentioned in the report of the learned Advocate-Commissioner shows that on physical verification of the said Plot No.68, it was found that no aluminum utensils were being manufactured. We have seen the colour photographs of all the six rooms/halls mentioned in the report, which have been annexed to the said report. It appears that only one shaping machine relating to shaping of aluminum lids was installed in one of the rooms. No aluminum utensils as such were found to be manufactured.

12. Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed such report of the learned Advocate-Commissioner. He has stated that he was also present during the inspection, but he has pointed out that the Lucknow Development Authority has been repeatedly issuing notices since 2019 to the petitioner and the petitioner has replied to such notices, but the Lucknow Development Authority has also not refused to take rent from the petitioner and the rent is being deposited by the petitioner regularly. Counsel for the petitioner read out certain paragraphs of the lease deed, which we found on careful perusal, to be inapplicable in the case.

13. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, who appears for the Lucknow Development Authority has pointed out the order dated 23.09.2019 relating to the same premises, which was served on the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, wherein a mention has been made that earlier on notice being issued on 21.04.2018 and the reply dated 05.06.2019 sent by the petitioner. An inspection was carried out after such reply was received and no equipment relating to manufacture of aluminum utensils was found in the six rooms constructed on Plot No.68. Out of six rooms, three were found closed and they were being used as godowns and outside of one godown, a board was fixed in the name and style of ?Rama Metal Industries? and the same was being used for storing of AP-3 Brand Grease and it belonged to Vinod Mehrotra, partner of M/s Rama Metal Industries. In one room, manufacturing of paper tea cups was found. It was informed by the persons present on the spot that at least the said room had been being let out to four persons. Krishna Pal Singh gave Rs.18,000/-, Vivek Mallik gave Rs.25,000/-, Ram Surat Maurya gave Rs.30,000/- and Amarnath Maurya gave Rs.29,000/- as monthly rent to the owner. Copy of the receipt of the rent was also produced before the inspection team. One of the rooms was being used as a store house of Wild Stone Perfume and other Cosmetics products.

14. In the said notice/order dated 23.09.2019 Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it has been stated that the conditions of the said lease deed were being violated and after the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 came into force, all the properties relating to Improvement Trust vested in the Lucknow Development Authority and it had been found on inspection that the plot in question was being used for the purposes other than mentioned in the lease deed. Renewal of the lease deed in terms of the Government Orders issued by the State Government was not possible as the plot was being used only to extract rent from the willing tenants by the petitioner. The Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority had approved the proposal of re-entry vide order dated 07.09.2019 and in terms of such order of the Vice-Chairman, the petitioner was directed to remove of his belongings and to give vacant possession of the plot in question to the Lucknow Development Authority.

15. It has been argued by Sri Ratnesh Chandra that several dates were given to remove such belongings so that the Lucknow Development Authority could re-enter the plot in question. Even before this order was passed, a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 07.05.2019, to which he had replied. It is not as of the petitioner did not know that action was being proposed by the Lucknow Development Authority to re-enter the premises because of violation of the terms of the lease deed executed earlier. The petitioner was also served notice in this behalf repeatedly by the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority.

16. We do not find any good ground to show interference in the order impugned.

17. We express our gratitude to the leaned Advocate-Commissioner Sri Rajesh Tewari, who has given such a graphic detailed description in his report, which has been submitted in time and helped us to decide this matter.

18. Writ petition stands dismissed.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) September 25, 2025 Rao/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court