Petitioner sought writs to quash an order and direct respondents not to interfere with peaceful working. Court rejected application of cited precedent as petitioner was appointed via service provider. Petition dismissed.
Writ of certiorari and mandamus dismissed; petition dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 17315 of 2025
Siddha Narayan Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
| Uttar Pradesh Power Corpora Others |
tion | Limited And 3 .....Respondent(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : | Anis Lata Srivastava, Pankaj Kumar Tyagi |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : | Abhishek Srivastava, Adarsh Bhushan |
| Court No.- 52 |
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 nad learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order being Ref. GCPL/SB/EMPLOYEE/COMPLAINT/L.No.0 dated 25.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.4.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner."
A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petitioner has been working in the department of respondent no.4 through a service provider.
Answering the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 250 of 2021 (Jagbhan vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others) .
WRIA No. 17315 of 2025
2
This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as the petitioner has been appointed through a service provider.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed .
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
December 16, 2025
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner is employed in a department through a service provider?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quashing of the impugned order or mandamus to ensure peaceful working?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagbhan vs. State of U.P. and 5 OthersReferred¶12
Special Appeal Defective No. 250 of 2021 (Jagbhan vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others)
Siddha Narayan Yadav
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
Respondent no. 2
Respondent no. 3
State of Uttar Pradesh
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
