Saloni and 3 Others v. Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026A227/466/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; expeditious disposal; Upziladhikari Tehsil Mishrikh Sitapur; Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya); liberty to file urgency application within two weeks with copy of order; application to be decided within three weeks; no interference; no examination on merits; petition disposed of; single judge (Alok Mathur, J.); decided February 3, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court concerned with an application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya), along with the order of this Court, within two weeks; such application, if moved, to be considered and decided within three weeks thereafter, and appropriate orders passed if urgency is made out. ¶¶16

Saloni and 3 Others vs Upziladhikari, Tehsil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to respondent no. 1 - Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur, for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202510640102877) - Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya.

¶¶12

Court's answer

At this stage the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Court concerned and move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025, along with the order of this Court, within two weeks; if such an application is moved, the Court/Authority shall consider and decide the same within three weeks thereafter, and if any case for urgency is made out, it shall pass appropriate orders thereupon and proceed in accordance with law.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

This Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit; the Court concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 - petition seeking a direction to respondent no. 1, Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur, for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202510640102877) - Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya - Court declined to interfere at this stage - liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the Court concerned and move an application detailing urgency, with the order of this Court, within two weeks - such application, if moved, to be considered and decided within three weeks thereafter, and appropriate orders passed if urgency is made out - Court clarified it has not examined the merits and the Court concerned shall decide strictly in accordance with law - petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 466 of 2026

Saloni And 3 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Pandey, Sandhya Bharti Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prayer has been made for direction to respondent no. 1 - Upziladhikari, Tehsil - Mishrikh, District - Sitapur, for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202510640102877) - Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Upziladhikari, Tehsil - Mishrikh, District - Sitapur, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶14

At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Court concerned and move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of Suit No. 2877 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202510640102877) - Saloni Vs. Kaushalaya, along with the order passed by this Court, within two weeks from today, and in case, if such an application is moved, the Court/Authority shall consider and decide the same within three weeks thereafter, and in case, any case for urgency is made out by the petitioner, it shall pass appropriate orders thereupon, and proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and the Court concerned shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

February 3, 2026

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saloni and 3 Others v. Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saloni and 3 Others v. Upziladhikari, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mahawar Marketings Private Limited Thru. Proprietor Mr. Sandeep Mahawar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. B.M. and others

Smt. Rajni Devi vs Dr. Anwar Ahmad Siddiqui

Munshi Rja @ Munshi Rja Khan vs Shakeel Ahmad and Another

Vishvnath Shukla vs Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Sajarunnisha and Another vs Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.