Dismissed¶20

Pappu Gond v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2026WRIC/13918/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pappu Gond v. The State of U.P. and 3 Others, WRIT - C No. 13918 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided May 12, 2026 (Arindam Sinha & Satya Veer Singh, JJ.). Caste certificate; Scheduled Tribe (Gond); challenge to U.P. Government Order dated 26th December, 2025 constituting vigilance cell; Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, AIR 1995 SC 94, paragraphs 13(4) and 13(5); Deputy Superintendent of Police; Social Welfare Officer; Tehsildar; objection to inclusion of Tehsildar in vigilance committee not entertained; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to adjudicate the petitioner's supplementary challenge that a vigilance committee cannot include the Tehsildar, since that challenge is not backed up by any direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). ¶20

Pappu Gond vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 13918 of 2026

Pappu Gond

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Court No. - 29

¶10

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶11

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Gond) and possesses duly issued caste certificate. He has challenged Government Order (GO) dated 26th December, 2025 constituting vigilance cell. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , paragraph 13(4). The direction paragraph is reproduced below.

¶12

"13(4). All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates."

¶13

He seeks interference.

¶14

Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He draws attention to paragraph 5 in the GO. By it there is direction for constitution of a vigilance cell. The Superintendent of Police is to nominate the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to head the cell. The officer is to be assisted by a Social Welfare Officer and Tehsildar. He submits further, by paragraph 13 (4) in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) direction was made for constituting a committee. Regarding vigilance cell the direction is in paragraph 13 (5). Said direction paragraph is reproduced below.

¶15

WRIC No. 13918 of 2026

¶16

¶17

"13(5). Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc."

¶18

He submits, the writ petition be dismissed.

¶19

Mr. Singh in reply submits, the GO is bad inasmuch as there cannot be a committee, much less a vigilance committee including the Tehsildar, the certificate issuing office.

¶20

We will not be drawn to adjudicate a supplementary challenge with cause, which is not backed up by any direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). It turns out, the writ petition is without merit. It is dismissed.

¶21

May 12, 2026 Jaswant

¶22

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶23

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu Gond v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Gond v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Shiv Giri Traders vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Om Food Manufacturing Center vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ummed Ali Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrawati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khushi Hospital and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others