Disposed¶15

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIA/13250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others; Writ - A No. 13250 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Chandra Dhari Singh, J.; decided September 8, 2025; writ petition disposed of with direction to file detailed representation before Joint Director of Education (respondent no. 2) within two weeks; reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks; opportunity of hearing to all affected parties; time bound decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Joint Director of Education/respondent no. 2 by way of a detailed representation (with the writ petition and certified copy of the order) within two weeks; respondent no. 2 to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after hearing all affected parties, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks. ¶15

Sangeeta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Decision of the issues raised in the instant writ petition by the Joint Director of Education/respondent no. 2, after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, in a time bound manner.

¶8

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation, along with the present writ petition and certified copy of this order, before the Joint Director of Education/respondent no. 2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Upon receiving the representation, respondent no. 2 (Joint Director of Education) is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on it.

¶11

Key takeaways

The reasoned and speaking order is to be passed in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving the representation.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Coram: Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (single Judge). Writ - A No. 13250 of 2025, Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others, disposed of on September 8, 2025. With no objection from learned Standing Counsel, the Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to approach the Joint Director of Education/respondent no. 2: petitioner to file a detailed representation, along with the writ petition and certified copy of the order, within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy; respondent no. 2 to decide the issues raised therein after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks of receiving the representation.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13250 of 2025

¶3

Sangeeta

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Prem Prakash Yadav, Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, after some length of argument, prayed that the liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the Joint Director of Education/respondent no. 2 by way of filing representation to decide the issues which have been raised in the instant writ petition, after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, in time bound manner.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Staterespondents vehemently opposed the petition but has not opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the contents made in the writ petition.

¶11

Taking into consideration of the submissions and prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and no objection made on behalf of learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Staterespondents, I am of the view that the prayer as made may be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation along with the present writ petition as well as certified copy of this order before the Joint Director of Education/respondent no.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After receiving the said representation, respondent no.2 is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the said representation in accordance

¶12

WRIA No. 13250 of 2025

¶13

¶14

with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving of the said representation.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶17

September 8, 2025

¶18

Pratima

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shatrughan Mani Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Amitesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Snehlata Chaturvedi vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Sunita Rana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jyoti Super Village Residents Welfare Association vs State of U.P. and 4 Others