Akshay Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 6 Other

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 10158 of 2026 Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:

"I. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents to unlock the Hotel namely Aerostay Hotel Sarsawa situated at Ahmedpur Sadat, Near Sarsawa Airport District Saharanpur.

II. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent No.3 to grant license and registration under Sarai Act to the Hotel namely Aerostay Hotel Sarsawa situated at Ahmedpur Sadat, Near Sarsawa Airport District Saharanpur within stipulated time."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a hotel which has been locked by the respondent authorities without any notice.

4. On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has any license to run the hotel, he submits that the petitioner has applied for grant of license under the provisions of the Sarais Act, 1867 and the same is pending before the concerned authority and in anticipation that the petitioner shall be granted the Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Saurabh Tiwari

Akshay Kumar And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

State Of U.P. And 6 Other

.....Respondent(s)

1

license, he is running the hotel.

5. We are not convinced by the reply of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner cannot run a hotel without having a required license in law. It appears that for the said reason that the petitioner is running a hotel without license, his hotel has been locked by the respondent authority. The record further reflects that the petitioner has submitted an application under the aforesaid Act and taking note of that application, the Officer Incharge/Additional District Magistrate, Administration, Saharanpur has requested various authorities to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner as per law so that application of the petitioner may be considered.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner's application for issuing license to run the hotel is pending before the authority concerned, we permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Saharanpur for grant of license under the aforesaid Act within a period of one month from today. In case any such application is filed, the respondent No.3 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter. We further direct the respondent authority to apprise the reason for locking the hotel of the petitioner.

7. We make it clear that we have not passed any order for unlocking the hotel of the petitioner and it is for the authority concerned that the hotel should be unlocked or not.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

9. Sri Saurabh Tiwari, learned Advocate states that he has wrongly been served notice for respondent No.5 through e-mail by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as he does not appear for respondent No.5.

April 1, 2026

Kuldeep WRIC No. 10158 of 2026

2

(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

2