The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking payment for work done in 2014-15. The counsel for the State objected maintainability, noting an enquiry was already conducted and a report found the complaint suspicious. The High Court held the matter could not be agitated now and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225415-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37485 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
submitted, which warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Manish Himwan
Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable pending an administrative enquiry against the petitioner.
Whether the court can interfere in administrative disputes where a fair enquiry has already been conducted.
Whether disputed bills regarding work carried out in 2014-2015 can be agitated at this belated stage.
Kripa Shankar Upadhyay
State of U.P.
Another
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
