✦ Allahabad High Court · 23 May 2022

Smt. Uzma Shakeel v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

WRIT - C No. 8494 of 2022

Case at a glance

Decided
23 May 2022

Provisions considered

Judgment

Petitioner :- Smt. Uzma Shakeel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Fareed Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Pratap Singh, Avijit Saxena, Manish Trivedi Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Heard Sri Fareed Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents no. 1 and 3 and Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following reliefs: "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release the bank guarantee of the petitioner of Rs. 6,17,800/- in favour of the petitioner. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case. " Primarily, the solitary relief as sought in the present petition is with regard to the release of bank guarantee of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,17,800/- stated to have not been released by the respondents. Despite the repeated query being sought to be raised from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any document to show that the respondents were under legal obligation to release the said bank guarantee, the answer is negative. From perusal of page 30 of the paper book, this Court finds the fact that the bank guarantee had been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 in pursuance of a contractual obligation. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot alter any condition with respect to the contractual obligations as referred therein. Resultantly, present petition being not maintainable is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy as may be available to him in law. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Abhishek AGRAHARI Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Allahabad High Court, on 23 May 2022.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Allahabad High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. WRIT - C No. 8494 of 2022). ← Search more judgments