Smt. Laxmi Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

After hearing counsel for the petitoner and and learned Standing Counsel, the following order was passed by this Court on 20.02.2026 in Writ C No.3380 of 2026 (Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others):-

¶12

1. Order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Barhaj, District Deoria is under challenge.

¶13

2. By the aforesaid order, the Hindi Sahitya Parishad through Ashish Saurabh Kedia ,Mahamantri Hindi Sahity Parishad, Barhaj was accepted to include as one of the necessary party in the pending proceedings.

¶14

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶15

4. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any argument has been raised that what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by implementing of Hindi Sahitya Parishad as one of the Respondent in the aforesaid proceedings.

¶16

5. The only argument has been made that this will delayed the

¶17

CMRA No. 50 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

pending proceedings.

¶20

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶21

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, without interfering with the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Barhaj, District Deoria to decide the aforesaid matter, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties concerned, unless there is no legal impediment.

¶22

8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶23

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present review petition has been filed with the following grounds:-

¶24

A. BECAUSE, on simple application dated 24.08.2025 of respondent no. 3 without any evidence, by passing the order dated 20.02.2026, of this Hon'ble Court, has been mechanical as well discriminatory in manner.

¶25

B. BECAUSE, by perusal of the order dated 20.02.2026, passing by this Hon'ble Court, it is clearly shown that by this Hon'ble Court has not adopted the judicial proceeding.

¶26

C. BECAUSE, in the order dated 20.02.2026, this Hon'ble Court neither consider the objection of Applicant nor consider the facts of the case which are stated in the Writ petition

¶27

D. BECAUSE, in the afore case, no finding/reason recorded by this court by passing the order dated 20.02.2026, which is not sustainable in the judicial process of the law.

¶28

E. BECAUSE, the great injustice has been committed by this Hon'ble Court to be not consider, the objection of Applicant, so

¶29

CMRA No. 50 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

Applicant has deprived from the natural justice

¶32

After going through the same, I am not able to understand the reason on the basis of which present review application has been filed.

¶33

Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel/President of Bar Association of High Court, Allahabad is directed to appear before this Court for necessary assistance in the matter.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate a copy of this review petition along with order passed today to Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel/President of Bar Association of High Court, Allahabad by 13.04.2026.

¶35

List this matter again on 16.04.2026. It is made clear that the matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m. sharp.

¶36

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶37

April 8, 2026 saqlain

¶38

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

Smt. Laxmi Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Devi 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

Rajaram Rajput vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramesh Chand vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sony Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naushad Ahmad Jalali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others