Disposed¶20

Suman Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC31 Mar 2026WRIA/3356/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 3356 of 2026; Suman Singh v. State of U.P. (Prin. Secy., Bal Vikas and Pushtahar); mandamus for decision of applications dated 26.2.2026; Chief Development Officer and Program Officer, District Ayodhya; fresh representation; time-bound disposal within four weeks; reasoned and speaking order; petition disposed of with directions; single judge Karunesh Singh Pawar; no statutory or precedent citation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 4 within one week; respondent no. 4 to consider and decide it within a further four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. ¶20

Suman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3356 of 2026

Suman Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas And Pushtahar Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijai Kumar Shukla, Parikshit Singh, Sudhanshu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

¶10

Notice to respondent no.7 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:-

¶12

"(i) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 4 i.e. Chief Devlopment Officer, District - Ayodhya, and opp. Party no. 5 i.e. Program Officer, District Ayodhya, for deciding the applications of petitioner dated 26.2.2026, which is annex as annexure no. 1 to this this writ petition, in the interest of Justice..

¶13

(ii) Such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, be passed in favour of petitioner"

¶14

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation raising his grievances before respondent no. 4, with a direction to decide the same within a stipulated period.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.4 within a period of one week

¶17

WRIA No. 3356 of 2026

¶18

¶19

from today. In case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no.4 within a further period of four weeks, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of .

¶21

March 31, 2026 Madhu J.R/P.S

¶22

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶23

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

Suman Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Lko. and 6 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

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

Yogendra Kumar (S.I. , PNO-920581203) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

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

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Hariom Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Ratnesh Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others