Dismissed¶16

Akanksha Yadav v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2025WRIC/20454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NEET UG 2025; OMR sheet verification; certified scanned copy; thumb impression; attendance register; invigilator log; CCTV footage; centre documentation; five objections; result declaration withheld; National Testing Agency; respondent no.3; Bansur Rajasthan; New Delhi; territorial jurisdiction; cause of action; writ of mandamus; writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach appropriate Court; Akanksha Yadav; Union of India; Allahabad High Court; WRIT-C No. 20454 of 2025; Saral Srivastava; Sudhanshu Chauhan; November 4, 2025

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. ¶16

Akanksha Yadav vs Union of India and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's writ petition seeking verification and production of her NEET (UG) 2025 examination records and decision of her five objections, given that she appeared in the examination at Bansur, Rajasthan and respondent no. 3 (National Testing Agency) is situated at New Delhi.

¶13

Court's answer

This Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition, as neither the cause of action, wholly or in part, has occurred within its territorial jurisdiction nor is the respondent authority located within such jurisdiction; accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - C No. 20454 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.), decided November 4, 2025: Petitioner Akanksha Yadav prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3, National Testing Agency, to verify and produce her original physical OMR sheet along with the attendance register, invigilator log and available CCTV footage of her examination room/seat, to furnish certified scanned copies of her OMR sheet, thumb impression and centre documentation, to withhold further processing/declaration of her result pending fair investigation and resolution in accordance with law, and to consider and decide her five objections before declaration of the NEET (UG) 2025 result. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination-2025 at Bansur (Rajasthan) while the office of the examination conducting body, respondent no. 3 National Testing Agency, is situated at New Delhi; therefore neither the cause of action, wholly or in part, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, nor is the respondent authority located within such jurisdiction. Held: the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Disposition: writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 20454 of 2025

Akanksha Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India And 2 Others		...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Birendra Yadav	Pratap Yadav,	Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Kumar Si	Fuzail Ahmad ngh	Ansari, Vivek

¶7

Court No. - 40

¶8

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

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶10

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

¶11

"Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent No.3 to verify and produce the original physical OMR sheet along with attendance register invigilator log and any available C.C.T.V. footage from room/seat at the examination of the petitioner and also provide certified scanned copy of OMR sheet, thumb impression and center documentation of the petitioner and further processing of result of the petitioner may not be declared till the matter is a fairly investigated and resolved in accordance with law.

¶12

Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the objections raised by the petitioner which are five in numbers, before declaration of result of National Eligibility Entrance Test (UG) 2025."

¶13

The petitioner appeared in the NEET (UG) Examination-2025 at BansurRajasthan and the office of the examination conducting body, i.e., respondent no. 3 National Testing Agency is situated at New Delhi. Therefore, neither the cause of action, wholly or in part, has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, nor is the respondent authority located within such jurisdiction.

¶14

WRIC No. 20454 of 2025

¶15

¶16

In such view of the fact, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

¶17

November 4, 2025 Gaurav

¶18

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

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akanksha Yadav v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akanksha Yadav v. Union of India and 2 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

Pradeep Kumar and 15 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Poonam @ Pooja Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Kalpana Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Careerlabs Technologies Private Limited and Another vs Ankit Saxena and Another

Chunnilal Since Deceased vs U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission and 2 Others

Raja Ram vs State of U.P. and 3 Others