Ramu Lal vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramu Lal vs State of Up and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only; matter not finally disposed. Respondent No.3 (Shri Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj) directed to appear in person before the Court with his proper explanation on 16.04.2026 at 10:00 a.m.; Shri Vijay Shyam Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel, directed to inform him of the order during the course of the day; matter listed again on 16.04.2026. The prayer for expeditious disposal of the appeal was not decided at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority should be directed to decide the petitioner's appeal against cancellation of his appointment as Home Guard expeditiously. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj, is directed to appear before this Court along with an explanation regarding the incomplete information; Shri Ranjeet Singh is to remain present in person with his proper explanation on the next date, 16.04.2026, when the matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m.

Key takeaways

The Court is of the prima facie opinion that incomplete information was provided by Respondent No.3 (Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj), either in order to mislead the Court or because the instructions were provided without going through the proof of the case.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), WRIT - A No. 5160 of 2026, decided 13.04.2026 (interim): The petitioner's appointment as Home Guard was cancelled by the District Commandant Home Guards, District Prayagraj (Respondent No.3) vide order dated 16.09.2025. His appeal filed on 22.01.2026 was forwarded to the appellate authority (Assistant Home Guards, Prayagraj) on 02.02.2026, and the writ petition sought a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The State's instructions dated 09.04.2026 explained the cancellation but were silent on the pending statutory appeal, although forwarded by the very officer (Shri Ranjeet Singh) who forwarded the instructions. The Court expressed a prima facie opinion that incomplete information had been furnished by Respondent No.3, whether to mislead the Court or without going through the proof of the case, and directed him to appear in person with an explanation on 16.04.2026 at 10:00 a.m.; the learned Standing Counsel was directed to communicate the order the same day. Matter adjourned to 16.04.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 5160 of 2026

Ramu Lal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 4 Others

		...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Achchhey Lal Yadav	Tiwari,	Ashok Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Home Guard was cancelled vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 namely District Commandant Home Guards, District Prayagraj, copy of which is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

It is stated in the aforesaid order that in case the petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid order, he can submit his representation before the Fist Appellate Authority namely Regional Assistant Home Guards, Prayagraj.

It is argued that aggrieved against the aforesaid, appeal was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority on 22.01.2026 which was duly forwarded by the Respondent No.3 to the appellate authority namely Assistant Home Guards, Prayagraj vide letter dated 02.02.2026 copy of which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

One of the prayers made in the present writ petition is to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal, expeditiously.

Learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court instructions dated April 9th, 2026 under the signature of District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj, the same is taken on record. Various reasons were stated in the aforesaid instructions that under what circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 16.09.2025.

WRIA No. 5160 of 2026

2

It is unfortunate that nothing has been stated in the entire instructions regarding the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority which was duly forwarded by Shri Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj who forwarded the instructions in question before this Court.

In this view of the matter, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that in-complete information were provided by the Respondent No.3 namely Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Homeguards, Prayagraj in order to mislead the Court or the instructions were provided without going through the proof of the case.

In this view of the matter, the Respondent No.3 namely District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj is directed to appear before this Court along-with an explanation in this regard.

List this matter again on 16.04.2026.

On the said date Shri Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj shall remain present before this Court along-with his proper explanation.

The matter will be taken up at 10:00 a.m. sharp.

Shri Vijay Shyam Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel will inform regarding this order to Shri Ranjeet Singh, District Commandant Home Guards, Prayagraj during the course of the day.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

April 13, 2026 Swati

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad