Disposed¶14

Dhruvram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2026WRIA/5845/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical bill reimbursement; delay/non-decision on representations; direction to consider fresh representation; District Magistrate, Jhansi; State of U.P.; disposal at admission stage with consent; ex parte disposal without merits; time-bound decision (three weeks / two months); WRIT - A No. 5845 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Prakash Padia, J.; no statute or precedent cited; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of finally: petitioner granted liberty to submit a fresh representation before respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Jhansi) within three weeks with certified copy of the order and photocopies of earlier representations; respondent no.2 or the concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law within a further period of two months. ¶14

Dhruvram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were bound to take a decision on the petitioner's repeated submissions/representations for reimbursement of medical bills, which remained undecided despite lapse of considerable time.

¶11

Court's answer

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Jhansi, along with certified copy of the order and photocopies of the earlier representations, within three weeks.

¶13

Key takeaways

If such representation is made, respondent no.2 shall either decide it himself or forward it to the authority concerned; in either case the decision shall be taken in accordance with law within a further period of two months.ratio¶13
Since the petition was decided on an ex parte version without seeking any response from the respondents, the order must not be construed as an expression that the Court has gone into the merits of the matter.ratio¶15
The second respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.), WRIT - A No. 5845 of 2026 (Dhruvram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others), decided April 23, 2026: writ petition complaining of non-decision on the petitioner's medical bill reimbursement claims, submitted from time to time, disposed of at the admission stage with consent of counsel. Petitioner permitted to file a fresh representation ventilating all grievances before respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Jhansi, within three weeks, annexing certified copy of the order and photocopies of earlier representations; respondent no.2, or the authority to whom he forwards it, to decide in accordance with law within a further two months. Court clarified that, the petition having been decided ex parte without response, the order is not an expression on the merits and the second respondent must accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5845 of 2026

Dhruvram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arvind Kumar .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of reimbursement of medical bills, the same were submitted before the authorities from time to time and though a considerable time has lapsed but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2District Magistrate, Jhansi along-with certified copy of this order and photo-copy of the earlier representations within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 himself or forward the same to the authority concerned but in both conditions the decision will be taken in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into

¶16

WRIA No. 5845 of 2026

¶17

¶18

the merits of the matter and the second respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field.

¶19

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶20

April 23, 2026 Pramod Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhruvram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruvram v. State of U.P. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Ekta Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Pratap Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km Sushma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgawati Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Panjab Singh vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Pratap Singh vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others