Disposed¶17

Kishor Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2026WRIA/2223/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 2223 of 2026; Manish Mathur, J.; Article 226 Constitution of India; mandamus; Seasonal Collection Amin; inclusion of name in list; rule 17-Ka; U.P. Collection Amin's Service Rule 1974; District Magistrate/Collector Ayodhya; fresh representation; reasoned and speaking order; six weeks; disposed of; Ramesh Kumar Srivastava; C.S.C.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party no.2 (District Magistrate/Collector, Ayodhya) or any other competent authority; such representation to be decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. ¶17

Kishor Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties can be commanded by way of mandamus to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Since consideration of the petitioner's grievance would entail factual aspects, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no.2, i.e. the District Magistrate/Collector, Ayodhya, or any other competent authority.

¶13

Key takeaways

Any such representation is required to be decided expeditiously by the authority concerned by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from receipt of the representation of the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order.ratio¶13
With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition stands finally disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-A No. 2223 of 2026 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 7); Manish Mathur, J.; decided February 25, 2026. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Kishor Kumar seeking mandamus to (i) allow him to work on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin and (ii) include his name in the list of Seasonal Collection Amins maintained by opposite party no.2 under rule 17-Ka of the U.P. Collection Amin's Service Rule 1974. Observing that consideration of the grievance would entail factual aspects, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate/Collector, Ayodhya, or any other competent authority, to be decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of the order; petition finally disposed of.

Kishor Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhinay @ Abhinav Chauhan @ Gulbadan Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Shailesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Lko. and Another