Vikash Prajapati (PNO-192621407) Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vikash Prajapati (PNO-192621407) Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the transfer order dated 21.09.2025 and the relieving order dated 22.09.2025 by a writ in the nature of Certiorari, with liberty to the opposite parties to pass orders afresh only in administrative exigencies or public interest and not as a mode of punishment; petition allowed at the admission stage; parties to bear their own costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's transfer (order dated 21.09.2025) and the relieving order dated 22.09.2025, said to be founded on confidential reports against him, were passed as a mode of punishment and are therefore impermissible under the dictum in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court found, from the State's instructions and the report, that the petitioner had been transferred as a mode of punishment, which is clearly against the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari (supra).

Ratio / Principle

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and law, the impugned orders dated 21.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 stand quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, granting liberty to the opposite parties to pass orders afresh, if required, but only in administrative exigencies or public interest and not as a mode of punishment.

Key takeaways

Supporting finding recorded in passing: despite time granted, the reports forming the basis of the allegations levelled against the petitioner were not produced, so the exact allegations in the report appeared vague.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a transfer order dated 21.09.2025 and a relieving order dated 22.09.2025 concerning the petitioner. Learned State Counsel stated that the transfer was effected on account of confidential reports indicating the petitioner's connivance with criminals and negligence in discharge of duties, but the underlying reports were not produced despite time granted, leaving the exact allegations vague. The Court held that, as evident from the instructions and the report, the petitioner had been transferred as a mode of punishment, contrary to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592, and accordingly quashed both impugned orders by a writ of Certiorari, granting liberty to pass fresh orders, if required, only in administrative exigencies or public interest and not as punishment. Petition allowed at the admission stage; parties to bear their own costs.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 14517 of 2025

Vikash Prajapati (Pno-192621407)

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anupam Shukla, Manish Vaish
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard Mr. Anupam Shukla and Mr. Manish Vaish, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 21.09.2025 with regard to transfer of petitioner as well as relieving order dated 22.09.2025.

It has been submitted that from a perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioner was transferred on account of some report which was submitted against him. It is submitted that although petitioner was not provided a copy of the report but the nature of order impugned indicates it having been passed as a mode of punishment, which is against the dictum laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592.

Learned State Counsel has earlier also been provided written instructions dated 06.12.2025 and has also been provided fresh instructions dated 15.12.2025, a copy of which are taken on record and reiterates the aspects that petitioner's transfer has been effected on account of confidential reports submitted against him, which clearly indicate his connivance with criminals of the area as also negligence towards discharge of duties.

Despite time having been granted, the reports which form the basis

WRIA No. 14517 of 2025

2

of allegations levelled against petitioner have not been produced due to which exact allegations levelled against petitioner in the report submitted today appear to be vague.

It is also evident from instructions as well as report that petitioner has been transferred as a mode of punishment, which is clearly against the law enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari (supra).

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and law indicated, impugned orders dated 21.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh, if required, but only in administrative exigencies or public interest and not as a mode of punishment.

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.

December 18, 2025 lakshman

(Manish Mathur,J.)

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench