Dismissed¶13

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Higher Education Dept. Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2026WPIL/241/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Chief Justice's Court), PIL No. 241 of 2026, Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. through Higher Education Department and others; decided March 20, 2026 by Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J. Dismissal of public interest litigation alleging dummy candidates appearing in college examinations and an Army serviceman shown as a regular student; PIL based on personal information or vengeance against an individual, without investigation or material, cannot be countenanced; maintainability of PIL; no substance in petition.

What did the court decide?

Filing of Public Interest Litigation based on some personal information/vengeance qua an individual, without any further investigation and/or material, cannot be countenanced. ¶12

Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru Higher Education Dept. Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 241 of 2026

Sanjay Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. through Higher Ed Lucknow and others	ucation Deptartment, .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Devendra Pratap, Saad Husain, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Ayush Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: V.P. Nag, A.C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh

¶7

Chief Justice's Court

¶8

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

¶9

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner making allegations against respondent no. 4/college that it is granting admission to students and thereafter, in the examination dummy candidates are appearing.

¶10

Specific instance has been given based on case of respondent no. 5 that he is serving in Army and has been shown as a regular student and therefore, action be initiated against the college and respondent no. 5.

¶11

A perusal of the petition indicates that the respondent no. 5 is a resident of Farrukhabad and when a query was made as to how the petitioner is aware of the status of respondent no. 5 i.e. he is serving in the Army, submission has been made that his relative is residing in Hardoi, a place where the petitioner resides and therefore, he got the information.

¶12

Filing of Public Interest Litigation, based on some personal information/vengeance qua an individual, without any further investigation and/or material, cannot be countenanced.

¶13

The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶14

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

¶15

March 20, 2026

¶16

Rakesh/nd

¶17

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

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Higher Education Dept. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Higher Education Dept. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Kanchan Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj . Lko. and 10 Others

Aryavart Bank Head Office Vijay Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. Thru. Chairman vs O.P Trivedi (Om Prakash Trivedi) and Others

Arun Kumar Singh Tomar vs U.P. Forest Corporation Indira Nagar Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others vs Baliram Yadav

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 2 Others vs Rakesh Srivastava

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag 1 Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others vs Uday Shanker Shukla