Ompal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 928 of 2025

¶3

Ompal Singh and 3 others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and 7 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Avneesh Tripathi, Rajiv Singh, S.C., Sitaram Yadav

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶8

This appeal is directed against order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 31497 of 2025, whereby while disposing of the writ petition, the respondent no. 6- Sub-Registrar, Sadar 4, Meerut has been directed to decide the representation to be made by respondent nos. 7 and 8.

¶9

Submissions have been made that the writ petition was filed by respondent nos. 7 and 8, inter alia , impleading the appellants as party seeking several reliefs, which were against the interest of the appellants. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, a prayer was made on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8 seeking permission to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 6 and a direction was sought to decide the same in a time bound manner.

¶10

Counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent no. 2 i.e. the University, recorded their no objection to the said prayer based on which the order was passed.

¶11

Submissions have been made that the appellants were affected parties and in their absence the order, which has been indicated as innocuous, could not have been passed as the same has serious implication in so far as the rights of the appellants are concerned and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶12

SPLA No. 928 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 and 8 made submissions that from the nature of order which has been passed by learned Single Judge, there cannot be any grievance and the authorityrespondent no. 6 would provide hearing to the appellants as well and, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.

¶15

Further submissions were made that the appeal, as filed, is not maintainable in view of judgment in Ashutosh Shrotriya and Ors. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Dr B R Ambedkar University & Ors: Special Appeal No. 1140 of 2008 , decided on 27.08.2015.

¶16

Counsel appearing for the State and the University fairly indicate that in the relief claimed before and granted by the learned Single Judge, the said respondents were not affected.

¶17

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶18

In so far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, it is undisputed that the order impugned 10.09.2025 was passed by learned Single Judge without providing any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The very fact that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants is sufficient for this Court to entertain the appeal, irrespective of the plea sought to be raised by the respondents. The judgment in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya (supra) cannot come in the way of maintaining the appeal on the said aspect.

¶19

Once from the tenor of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the appellants, who are affected parties, were not provided any opportunity of hearing and the order was passed for deciding the representation to be made by respondent nos. 7 and 8, qua which relief the appellants have serious objections, the order passed by learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained.

¶20

Consequently, the appeal is allowed . The order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Single Judge to hear and decide the same in accordance with

SPLA No. 928 of 2025

3

law.

The appellants would put in their appearance before the learned Single Judge and the matter shall be listed before learned Single Judge on 29.10.2025 as fresh.

¶25

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶26

October 8, 2025

¶27

RK/AKShukla

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ompal Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ompal Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases