Disposed¶22

Krishna v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025WRIA/17366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT - A No. 17366 of 2025; mandamus; representation dated 17.10.2025; Divisional Transport Officer Varanasi; Assistant Divisional Transport Officer (Administration); Gross Vehicle Weight enhancement 1500 kg; truck UP-65-QT5630; permit 43,500 kgs.; reasoned and speaking order; notice and opportunity of hearing; writ disposed without entering merits; decision dated November 19, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without going into merits: liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent no.4 (Assistant Divisional Transport Officer (Administration), Varanasi) within one month, to be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within one month thereafter after due notice and opportunity of hearing. The prayer for enhancement of Gross Vehicle Weight was not adjudicated on merits.

Krishna vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should be issued directing Respondent No.3, Divisional Transport Officer, Varanasi, to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2025 within a stipulated period. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.4, Assistant Divisional Transport Officer (Administration), Varanasi, along with a certified copy of the order within one month.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

If such a representation is filed, respondent no.4 shall consider and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within one month thereafter, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by Krishna, owner of registered truck UP-65-QT5630 (permit 43,500 kgs.; G.V.W. 42,000 kg), who sought mandamus to the Divisional Transport Officer, Varanasi to decide his representation dated 17.10.2025 and to enhance his vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight by 1500 kg on deposit of the tax difference. Without going into the merits, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no.4, Assistant Divisional Transport Officer (Administration), Varanasi, within one month, to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within one month thereafter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17366 of 2025

Krishna

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 40

¶10

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶12

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no.3, Divisional Transport Officer, Varanasi, District Varanasi to decide the representation dated 17.10.2025 within some stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to increase the Gross Vehicle Weight (C.V.W.) 1500 kg. of vehicle No. UP-65-QT 5630 of the petitioner.

¶15

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶16

(iv) award the cost petition to the petitioner."

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of registered vehicle (Truck) bearing no.UP-65-QT5630. The transport authority has provided permit of 43,500 kgs. to the vehicle of the petitioner and the gross Vehicle Weight (G.V.W.) of the petitioner's vehicle is 42000 kg, therefore, the petitioner wants to increase the Gross Vehicle Weight (G.V.W) 1500 kg. of his vehicle as per the transport rules and wants to deposit the difference of the tax of the vehicle. In this respect, petitioner has moved several representations last of which is dated 17.10.2025 before the respondents authority.

¶18

WRIA No. 17366 of 2025

¶19

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has moved several representations before the respondents authority, but no action has yet been taken on the same by the respondents authority. .

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.4.

¶22

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.4-Assistant Divisional Transport Officer (Administration), Varanasi, District Varanasi along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.4 shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of one month thereafter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

November 19, 2025 NS

¶24

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶25

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

Krishna v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Aiu Mines and Minerals vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ameer Hasan Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqra Agency vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kishan Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others