SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Vandana Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rakesh Chandra Tewari
For the Respondent: Mohammad Aslam Khan

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra Tewari, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.4 and 5 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an office memorandum dated 24.12.2025, issued by the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pratapgarh, to the extent that it declares continuance of proceedings only under Section 10 of the Regulation of Building Operations Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the RBO Act) in respect of certain constructions raised by the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 and not under Section 7-A of the RBO Act.

3. By way of an amendment made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged another office memorandum dated 20.01.2026, issued by the Prescribed Authority canceling a notice under Section 7-A of the RBO Act, 1958 issued to the opposite party no.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top