Dismissed¶26

Mohit Saurabh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026CMRAD/64/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of order dismissing writ petition as withdrawn on applicant's own withdrawal application — no liberty to file fresh writ petition sought or granted — no error apparent on face of record — delay in filing review condoned — review application dismissed. Mohit Saurabh v. State of U.P. (P.W.D.), Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Manish Kumar J., 01.04.2026; Writ Petition No.780 (S/S) of 2016; C.M. Application No.50934 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

Only procedural relief: delay in filing the review application condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 allowed); the review application itself dismissed with no further relief. ¶26

Mohit Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only procedural relief: delay in filing the review application condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 allowed); the review application itself dismissed with no further relief.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the application for review of the order dated 29.09.2020 should be condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026). +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The cause shown in the affidavit filed with the delay-condonation application is satisfactory; the delay in filing the application for review is condoned and C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 is allowed.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

There is no error apparent on the face of the record: the order dated 29.09.2020 was passed as per the application moved by the petitioner/applicant for withdrawal, which contained no prayer for liberty to file a fresh writ petition, and no such request was made by learned counsel at the time the order was passed.

¶25

Key takeaways

The review application is dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 13), Manish Kumar, J. — Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 64 of 2026, Mohit Saurabh v. State of U.P. (Public Works Department) and others, decided 01.04.2026. The applicant sought review of the order dated 29.09.2020 in Writ Petition No.780 (S/S) of 2016, by which his own application (C.M. Application No.50934 of 2020) for withdrawal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel contended that the Court had not granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition; asked by the Court, he fairly conceded that neither the affidavit accompanying the withdrawal application nor any request at the time of passing the order sought such liberty. Holding: (i) delay in filing the review application condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 allowed); (ii) no error apparent on the face of the record, the withdrawal order having been passed strictly in terms of the applicant's own application which contained no prayer for liberty; (iii) review application dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 64 of 2026

Mohit Saurabh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026)

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for review of order dated 29.09.2020 passed in the writ petition.

¶11

The cause shown in the affidavit filed alongwith the application is satisfactory.

¶12

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶13

The delay in filing the application for review is condoned.

¶14

(Order on Review Application)

¶15

The present review application has been filed for review of the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.780 (S/S) of 2016 on the application filed by the applicant for withdrawal of the writ petition, the same is quoted hereinbelow:

¶16

"(C.M. Application No.50934 of 2020)

¶17

This is an application for withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant wants to withdraw the writ petition.

¶19

The application is allowed.

¶20

CMRAD No. 64 of 2026

¶21

¶22

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. "

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Court has not given the liberty to the applicant for filing the fresh writ petition.

¶24

On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant whether there was any prayer in the affidavit filed alongwith the application for withdrawal of the writ petition regarding grant of liberty or the counsel had made any request at the time of passing the order dated 29.09.2020 for grant of liberty for filing a fresh writ petition, he has very fairly replied that neither in the affidavit filed alongwith the writ petition nor at the time of filing the withdrawal application any such prayer was made and he has enclosed the copy of the application for withdrawal of the writ petition.

¶25

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The order dated 29.09.2020 has been passed as per the application moved by the petitioner / applicant where there is no prayer for giving liberty for filing a fresh writ petition nor any request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant for giving liberty for filing a fresh writ petition.

¶26

As such, the review application is dismissed.

¶27

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶28

April 1, 2026

¶29

S. Kumar

¶30

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

Mohit Saurabh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Saurabh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Public Works Deptt. Lko. 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

X Juvenile Delinquent Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Radha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Vijay @ Durgesh @ Bhullu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Deepak Sonkar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Omprakash @ Dilla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitin Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.