Radheyshyam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Radheyshyam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No. 2 directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20-02-2025 in accordance with law within a maximum of six weeks from submission of the certified copy of the order; petitioner directed to annex a photocopy of the representation along with the certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 2 should be directed to decide the petitioner's representation/application dated 20-02-2025 (filed pursuant to Rule-8(h) of the Rules of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Right of Forest) Act) within a stipulated time-frame.

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20-02-2025 in accordance with law, within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the case on merits; it is for respondent No. 2 to pass the order after considering the relevant Rules and the facts of the case.

Key takeaways

The Court instructed the petitioner to annex a photocopy of the representation dated 20-02-2025 along with the certified copy of the order when submitting it.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Writ - C No. 26962 of 2025 (bench: Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J. and Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.; decided 7 October 2025) — Petitioner Radheyshyam sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 02 to decide his representation/application dated 20-02-2025, made under Article-14 of the Constitution of India and Rule-8(h) of the Rules, 2007 (Amended Rules, 2012) of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Right of Forest) Act, 2006, within a stipulated time. Learned standing counsel had no objection to such a direction. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent No. 2 to decide the representation in accordance with law within a maximum of six weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order, and requiring the petitioner to annex a photocopy of the representation with the certified copy. The Court expressly made clear that it had not adjudicated the case on merits and left the substantive decision to respondent No. 2 after considering the relevant Rules and facts.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 26962 of 2025

Radheyshyam	Versus	.....Petitioner(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Satish Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

Court No. - 1

HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 02 to decide the application dated 20-02-2025 under Article-14 of the Constitution of India and Rule-8(h) of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Right of Forest) Act, 2006, Rule 2007,Amended Rule-2012 within stipulated time as per fixed by this Hon'ble court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his grievance, petitioner has filed representation dated 20-02-2025 before respondent No.2, but till date no decision has been taken. Lastly, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid representation within a stipulated time, for which learned standing counsel has no objection.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

WRIC No. 26962 of 2025

2

petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20-02-2025 in accordance with law maximum within period of six weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to annex photocopy of representation dated 20-02-2025 alongwith certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It is upon respondent No. 2 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules as well as facts of the case.

October 7, 2025 pks

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

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