Disposed¶13

Shri Kishan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026WRIC/10365/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; maintainability of writ; U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 S. 27(1), S. 27(2); U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 Rule 258(2) and proviso to Rule 259; order dated 31.12.2025 by District Magistrate, Budaun; appeal before Commissioner, Bareilly Division; Annexure-2 held to be a representation, not a registered appeal; writ disposed of with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law; if such an appeal is filed in accordance with Rule 258(2) of the Rules of 1947, the consequences in the proviso to Rule 259 shall follow. ¶13

Shri Kishan Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 of the District Magistrate, Budaun under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 should be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal under Section 27(2) read with Rule 258(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.

¶10

Court's answer

The document filed as Annexure-2, purported to be an appeal under Rule 258(2) of the Rules of 1947, is only a representation addressed to the Commissioner sent through registered post; there is nothing on record to show that any appeal has been registered before the Commissioner of the Division.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.

¶13

Key takeaways

It is made clear that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 258(2) of the Rules of 1947, the consequences mentioned in the proviso to Rule 259 of the Rules of 1947 shall accordingly follow.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar, J.) disposed of a writ petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. On the Standing Counsel's preliminary objection that the order was questionable in appeal under Section 27(2) read with Rule 258(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, the Court found that the document filed as Annexure-2 was merely a representation addressed to the Commissioner sent through registered post, and nothing on record showed any appeal registered before the Commissioner of the Division. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, to be heard and decided in accordance with law, with a clarification that if an appeal is duly filed under Rule 258(2), the consequences in the proviso to Rule 259 of the Rules of 1947 shall follow.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10365 of 2026

Shri Kishan Pal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others		....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akshay Kumar Singh Kashyap	Shukla,	Ravindra Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 36

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Akshay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6.

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun, in exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection stating that the order of the District Magistrate under challenge is questionable in appeal under Section 27(2) read with Rule 258(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, which is pending adjudication.

¶12

Perusal of the document filed as Annexure-2 purported to be an appeal under Rule 258(2) of the Rules of 1947 is a representation addressed to the Commissioner sent through registered post. There is nothing on record to show that any appeal has been registered before the Commissioner of the Division.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, which shall be heard and decided, in accordance with law.

¶14

WRIC No. 10365 of 2026

¶15

¶16

It is made clear that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 258(2) of the Rules of 1947, then the consequences mentioned in proviso to Rule 259 of the Rules of 1947 shall, accordingly, follow.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

March 19, 2026

Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Kishan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kishan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjit Singh Gurjar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Baran vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajaram Giri vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Bakreedul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhawna Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others