Disposed¶20

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025WRIC/43298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WRIT-C No. 43298 of 2025; Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. State of U.P. and 4 others; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Court No. 40; District Magistrate, Agra penalty order dated 13.10.2025; Rs. 19,36,096/- penalty; withdrawal of impugned order dated 15.12.2025; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; jurisdiction of District Magistrate to impose penalty; interim order 10.12.2025; summons to District Magistrate considered; Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel-II; Abhishek Kumar counsel for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

No further relief ordered; petition disposed of as the impugned penalty order of the District Magistrate, Agra had been withdrawn by the respondents (order dated 15.12.2025), with no order as to costs. ¶20

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Agra was without jurisdiction, the District Magistrate having no such power to impose penalty. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Prima facie, the impugned order was without jurisdiction, as the District Magistrate had no such power to impose penalty (interim observation dated 10.12.2025; the point was not conclusively adjudicated as the order was withdrawn).

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 had been withdrawn by the order dated 15.12.2025, no further order was required and the writ petition stood disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶20

Key takeaways

The amount of Rs.19,36,096/- quantified by the District Magistrate was not supported by any evidence or material on record (interim observation dated 10.12.2025; not conclusively adjudicated as the order was withdrawn).obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, JJ.) disposed of Writ-C No. 43298 of 2025 (Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. State of U.P. and 4 others) on 16.12.2025. The petition challenged an order dated 13.10.2025 of respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Agra imposing a penalty of Rs. 19,36,096/-. On 10.12.2025 the Court had prima facie observed that the impugned order was without jurisdiction (the District Magistrate having no such power to impose penalty) and that the quantified amount was not supported by any evidence or material on record, and had been inclined to summon the District Magistrate, Agra, but adjourned on the request of Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, to seek instructions. At the resumed hearing, the Chief Standing Counsel-II stated, on instructions taken on record, that the impugned order had been withdrawn by order dated 15.12.2025. As the impugned order thus stood withdrawn, the Court held that no further order was required and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 43298 of 2025

¶3

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Kumar
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 Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the respondents.

¶12

This Court on 10.12.2025 passed the following order:

¶13

"1. Prima facie, we find that impugned order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the District Magistrate has no such power to impose penalty. Further, we find that impugned order is without any reason as the amount of Rs.19,36,096/- quantified by the District Magistrate is not supported by any evidence or material on record.

¶14

2. In such view of the fact, we are inclined to summon the District Magistrate, Agra. However, on the request of Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, we adjourn the case to enable him to seek instructions in the matter.

¶15

3. It is made clear that if the instructions supplied are not satisfactory, we may consider to summon the District Magistrate, Agra.

¶16

4. Put up as fresh on 16.12.2025. "

¶17

Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II on instructions, which is taken on record, states that the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Agra has been withdrawn by the order dated 15.12.2025.

¶18

WRIC No. 43298 of 2025

¶19

¶20

In such view of the fact, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed off with no order as to costs.

¶21

December 16, 2025 NS

¶22

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

¶23

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

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya v. State of U.P. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kalindi Devi vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Another

Dheeraj Pandey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Bahadur Maurya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hamdan @ Mo. Handaan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahid Hasan vs State of U.P and 3 Others