Ram Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30.12.2025 treated as notice; petitioner granted three weeks to submit reply; respondent no.5 directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within the next three weeks; no coercive action against petitioner for two months or till a fresh order is passed, whichever is earlier. The merits of the challenge, including the contention regarding financial year 2017-18, were left for fresh consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of recovery passed against the petitioner are sustainable in law. +1 more

Court's answer

The court found from the record that notices dated 21.06.2021 and 09.09.2024 were issued to the petitioner by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar, and that since no reply was given the decision in question was taken.

Ratio / Principle

In the interest of justice, the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent no.5 is to be treated as notice, and the petitioner is directed to submit a reply to it within three weeks.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files the reply, respondent no.5 is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within the next three weeks.ratio¶19
For a period of two months, or until a fresh order is passed, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery - Order dated 30.12.2025 of District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Siddharth Nagar (respondent no.5) challenged in Writ - A No. 6735 of 2026 - Record showed notices dated 21.06.2021 and 09.09.2024 were issued to the petitioner and no reply was filed, whereupon the recovery order was passed - Petitioner's contention that recovery proceedings could not be initiated for financial year 2017-18 not adjudicated on merits - In the interest of justice, impugned order treated as notice; petitioner granted three weeks to file reply; respondent no.5 directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within the next three weeks - No coercive action against petitioner for two months or till a fresh order, whichever earlier - Writ petition disposed of. (Prakash Padia, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 6735 of 2026

Ram Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

The orders of recovery passed against the petitioner are under challenge in the present writ petition.

It is stated in the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Siddharth Nagar/respondent no.5 that inspite of notices issued to the petitioner no reply has been submitted. In this view of the matter, after noting down the facts of the case an order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner.

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that recovery proceedings against the petitioner could not be initiated for the financial year 2017-18.

On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that since no reply was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the notices hence order impugned has been passed, which does not call for any interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From perusal of the record it is clear that notices dated 21.06.2021 and thereafter 09.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar and since no reply was given the decision in question has been taken.

In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent no.5 be treated as notice and the petitioner is directed to submit reply to the same within a period of three

WRIA No. 6735 of 2026

2

weeks from today. If it is so the respondent no.5 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within next three weeks.

For a period of two months or till the time a fresh order is passed, whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

May 6, 2026

Pramod Tripathi

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