Bhawna Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bhawna Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

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.

Ratio / Principle

The document filed as Annexure-3, 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.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files an appeal 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

Panchayat Raj — U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, S. 27(1) — order dated 31.12.2025 of the District Magistrate, Budaun challenged in writ — preliminary objection that the impugned order is questionable in appeal under S. 27(2) read with Rule 258(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 — Annexure-3, purported to be an appeal under Rule 258(2), held to be only a representation addressed to the Commissioner sent through registered post, with nothing on record showing any appeal registered before the Commissioner of the Division — writ petition 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 — if such appeal is filed, the consequences in the proviso to Rule 259 of the Rules of 1947 shall follow (Arun Kumar, J.; March 19, 2026).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 10420 of 2026

Bhawna Bharti

.....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

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

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

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.

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.

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

Perusal of the document filed as Annexure-3 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.

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.

WRIC No. 10420 of 2026

2

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