Disposed¶14

Hari Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025WRIC/37182/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 37182 of 2025; Hari Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 others; Prakash Padia, J.; November 13, 2025; writ of mandamus for expeditious disposal of Appeal No. 46 of 2025; Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region; rejection of interim relief application dated 13.08.2025; three-month timeline for appellate decision; interim restraint on fresh allotment; petition disposed of without entering merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food), Bareilly Region, Bareilly to decide Appeal No.46 of 2025 most expeditiously, preferably within three months from production of a certified copy of the order, unless there is no legal impediment; interim direction that till then no fresh allotment be made in favour of any other person. ¶14

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 37182 of 2025

Hari Ram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ram Krishna, Shivam Prabhakar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶10

Along with the appeal, an application for grant of interim relief was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region Bareilly vide its order dated 13.08.2025. Hence the present petition.

¶11

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal being Appeal No.46 of 2025 expeditiously.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region Bareilly to decide the aforesaid appeal most expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order unless there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Till then no fresh allotment should be made in favour of any other person.

¶16

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶17

November 13, 2025

¶18

saqlain

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. State of U.P. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anju Chaudhary vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Paramshukh Tiwari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahesh Chandra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kulwant Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashfak Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

M/S Piyush Refreshment Corner vs State of U.P. and 2 Others