Dismissed

Shyam Sundar Yadav and 88 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2026SPLAD/668/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 64-day delay in filing the appeal, but dismissed the intra-Court appeal as lacking merit. The appellants had not instituted proceedings before the Supreme Court by the stipulated cut-off date of 31 December 2019 and were therefore not entitled to relief under the Supreme Court’s decision.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 64 days in filing the appeal was condoned; the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shyam Sundar Yadav and 88 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 668 of 2026

¶3

Shyam Sundar Yadav And 88 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajesh Yadav, Vinay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi

¶8

Court No. - 39

¶9

HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

¶10

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2026

¶11

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the original petitioners/appellants; Sri Dinesh Kumar, holding brief of Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 64 days.

¶13

Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.

¶14

Order on Appeal

¶15

Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order of the learned single judge dated 29.05.2026 in Shyam Sundar Yadav And 355 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, 2026:AHC:123375 . Thereby, learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition following the decision of the Supreme Court dated 29.01.2025 in State of U.P. vs Neeraj Kumar Pandey & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. Nil of 2025 (Diary No.18516/2019) . In paragraph 16 of that order, the Supreme Court has categorically stated as below:

¶16

"16. It is made clear that only those candidates who have approached this Court with writ petitions/interlocutory applications seeking intervention, impleadment, etc. any time before 31st December, 2019 shall be entitled

¶17

SPLAD No. 668 of 2026

¶18

¶19

to the benefit of this order. Relief is declined to the others on the ground that they were fence-sitters."

¶20

On specific query, learned counsel for the appellant states that no proceeding had been instituted before the cut-off date 31.12.2019.

¶21

However, it is his submission that the original petitioners/appellants had scored very high merit. At present, there is no other material before us to infer that the original petitioners/appellants were party to the proceeding before the Supreme Court.

¶22

Be that as it may, once the Supreme Court has closed the remedy to the persons such as the original petitioners/appellants describing them to be "fence-sitters" not entitled to any relief, there is no error in principle in the order of learned single judge in correctly following the decision of the Supreme Court.

¶23

Accordingly, present intra-Court appeal lacks merit and is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶24

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) September 17, 2026 #Vikram/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyam Sundar Yadav and 88 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Yadav and 88 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases