Dismissed¶11

Dharm Dev Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025WPIL/3606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, PIL No. 3606 of 2025 (WPIL No. 3606 of 2025), Dharm Dev Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others, decided November 18, 2025 (Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ.). Keywords: maintainability of PIL; complaint/application not supported by affidavit; preliminary objection of Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Section 95(1)(g) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; Article 226 petition; liberty to approach District Magistrate within four weeks; disposal in accordance with law; PIL not entertained at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate complaint/application along with an affidavit before the District Magistrate concerned within four weeks; if so filed on a prescribed format raising the issues, the District Magistrate to examine and dispose of it in accordance with law. ¶11

Dharm Dev Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the PIL petition is maintainable where the complaint/application underlying it is not supported by an affidavit and does not comply with the parameters for PIL litigation, including Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The court finds merit in the State's preliminary objection: the complaint filed along with the application is not supported by an affidavit.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The PIL is declined entertainment at this stage, with liberty left open to the petitioner to make an appropriate complaint or application along with an affidavit before the District Magistrate concerned within four weeks, if so advised.

¶11

Key takeaways

If such complaint/application is filed on a prescribed format raising the issues, the District Magistrate concerned will examine it and dispose of it in accordance with law.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PIL under Article 226 seeking inquiry into the petitioner's complaint dated 6th October, 2025 — Division Bench of Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi, JJ. upheld the preliminary objection of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the complaint/application was not supported by an affidavit and did not conform to the parameters for PIL litigation, including Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Court declined to entertain the PIL at this stage but left it open to the petitioner to move the District Magistrate concerned within four weeks with an affidavit-supported complaint/application on the prescribed format, observing that if so filed, the District Magistrate shall examine and dispose of it in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3606 of 2025

¶3

Dharm Dev Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 4

¶7

HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶9

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner wants inquiry upon a complaint made by him vide letter dated 6th October, 2025.

¶10

Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition for not complying with various parameters for which PIL litigation could be permitted to be launched inasmuch as an application without any affidavit cannot be examined by District Magistrate. It is submitted that application should be within the scope and ambit of Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, we find merit in the submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as the complaint filed along with an application is not supported by an affidavit. Accordingly, while we decline to entertain this PIL at this stage but leave it open for the petitioner to make appropriate complaint or application along with an affidavit before the District Magistrate concerned within four weeks from today, if so advised and in the event such compliant/ application is filed on a prescribed format raising the issues, the District Magistrate concerned will certainly

¶12

WPIL No. 3606 of 2025

¶13

¶14

be examining the same and shall be disposing of the same in accordance with law.

¶15

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)

¶16

November 18, 2025

¶17

Atmesh

¶18