Dismissed¶16

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 3 Others v. Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026CMRAD/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed as identical to coordinate-bench dismissals; State of U.P.; Deependra Prakash Tiwari; Special Appeal Defective No. 121 of 2025; Jag Prasad Chaubey Special Appeal No. 191 of 2024; Rajendra Bahadur Singh CMRAD No. 154 of 2025; Uma Shankar Singh CMRAD No. 148 of 2025; delay of 276 days condoned; C.M.A. 1 of 2026; CMRAD No. 26 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; decided 18.02.2026; Arun Bhansali Chief Justice; Jaspreet Singh J.

What did the court decide?

Only condonation of the 276-day delay in filing (C.M.A. 1 of 2026 allowed); the review petition itself was dismissed with no further relief. ¶16

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 3 Others vs Deependra Prakash Tiwari — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 26 of 2026

¶3

State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Lucknow and 3 others

¶4

evenue eparmen. ucnow	Versus an o	ers	.....Applicant(s)
Deependra Prakash Tiwari			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Nishant Shukla Ramakant Dixit	(A.C.S.C.)

¶5

Chief Justice's Court

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶7

The review petition is barred by 276 days.

¶8

An application seeking condonation of delay (C.M.A. 1 of 2026) in filing the review petition, has been filed.

¶9

For the reasons indicated in the application, supported by affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

¶10

This review petition has been filed by the appellants-petitioners in relation to order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 121 of 2025: State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Deependra Prakash Tiwari, whereby the special appeal was dismissed as squarely covered by a decision of this Court in State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Jag Prasad Chaubey : Special Appeal No. 191 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, points out that identical review petitions pertaining to similar orders have been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, being State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Rajendra Bahadur Singh and 4 others : C.M. Review Application Defective No. 154 of 2025, decided on 31.10.2025, and State of U.P. and 3 others Vs. Uma Shankar Singh : C.M. Review Application Defective No. 148 of 2025, decided on 12.12.2025 and therefore, the present review

¶12

CMRAD No. 26 of 2026

¶13

¶14

petition, which is identical in nature, also deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute that the issue as raised in the present review petition is similar to that in the case of Rajendra Bahadur Singh (supra) and Uma Shankar Singh (supra).

¶16

The review petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶17

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶18

February 18, 2026 Harshita/AHA

¶19

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

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 3 Others v. Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 3 Others v. Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 2 Others vs Dr. Pragya Singh

Pradeshik Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited Thru. Managing Director vs Virendra Kumar and 33 Others

Shatrughan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Minstry for Law Lko. and 3 Others

Jamuna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Charandip Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko and 5 Others