Disposed¶22

Vijay Pal v. Sanjay Kumar and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2026A227/368/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vijay Pal v. Sanjay Kumar and Another, Matters Under Article 227 No. 368 of 2026, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 5, Alok Mathur, J., decided 05.02.2026: petition disposed of with direction to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh to decide restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against order dated 10.1.2024 within four months on production of certified copy; impleadment of SDM as respondent No.3 allowed; no-adjournment cooperation direction; no merits entered.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh to decide restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against order dated 10.1.2024 expeditiously, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶22

Vijay Pal vs Sanjay Kumar and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh should be directed to decide the restoration application dated 29.1.2024 (against order dated 10.1.2024) expeditiously.

¶15

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits, respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is directed to decide the restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against order dated 10.1.2024 expeditiously, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The C.M. Application dated 3.2.2026 for impleading the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh as respondent No.3 is allowed, the cause shown being sufficient; petitioner permitted to carry out the amendment during the course of the day.

¶10

Key takeaways

Parties to the case directed to cooperate in expeditious disposal and not to seek unnecessary adjournments; the court concerned not to grant such adjournments except in exceptional circumstances.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 368 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), decided February 5, 2026 — C.M. application for impleading the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh as respondent No.3 allowed; writ petition disposed of without entering into merits, with a direction to the SDM to decide the petitioner's restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against the order dated 10.1.2024 expeditiously, within four months from production of certified copy of the order, in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing, if there is no legal impediment; parties directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 368 of 2026

¶3

Vijay Pal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Sanjay Kumar And Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rama Shankar Dubey :

¶6

Court No. - 5

¶7

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶8

C. M. Application dated 3.2.2026 for impleading Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh as respondent No.3

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No.3.

¶10

The cause shown is sufficient. Application is allowed.

¶11

The petitioner is permitted to carry out the amendment during course of the day.

¶12

Order on memo of the petition.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No.3.

¶14

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶15

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for direction to the respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh to decide restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against order dated 10.1.2024 passed by respondent No.3, expeditiously.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case aforesaid case is considered and decided in a time bound manner, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is directed to decide restoration application dated 29.1.2024 against order dated 10.1.2024 passed by respondent No.3 expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional

A227 No. 368 of 2026

circumstances.