Disposed¶16

Ajit Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026WRIC/14640/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; expeditious disposal; time-bound direction; Commissioner Prayagraj Division; Case No.1 of 2025; Computerized Case No.C202502000000001; Section 4(1-A); U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860; two-month timeline; certified copy service; Ajit Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.; WRIT - C No. 14640 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Siddharth Nandan, J.; decided April 20, 2026; writ petition disposed of; societies registration dispute; Assistant Registrar Firms Societies.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus/direction to respondent no.2 (Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj) to decide Case No. 1 of 2025 under Section 4(1-A) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860 expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order. ¶16

Ajit Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent no.2 to decide Case No.1 of 2025, under Section 4(1-A) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860, pending before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, expeditiously within a stipulated period fixed by the court.

¶13

Court's answer

Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide Case No. 1 of 2025 (Ajit Pratap Singh and others vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and others) under Section 4(1-A) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860, pending before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The pending case is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order.

¶15

Key takeaways

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending in view of the nature of the relief sought, and the learned Standing Counsel raised no objection to its disposal.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth Nandan, J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to decide Case No.1 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202502000000001 (Ajit Pratap Singh and others Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and others), under Section 4(1-A) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860, pending before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj. Observing that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending and noting the Standing Counsel had no objection, the Court directed respondent no.2 to decide the said case expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order. No precedent was cited or considered; the matter was disposed of on the limited relief of expeditious disposal.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14640 of 2026

Ajit Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Court No. - 38

¶10

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Dev Kaushik, holding brief of Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶13

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to decide the Case No.1 of 2025, Computerized Case No.C202502000000001 (Ajit Pratap Singh and others Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and others), under Section 4(1-A) of U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860 pending before Commissioner Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in accordance with law expeditiously as early as possible within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court."

¶14

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the aforesaid writ petition pending in view of the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel also has no objection to the same.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide Case No. 1 of 2025 (Ajit Pratap Singh and others vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and others), under Section 4(1-A) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860, pending before the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

April 20, 2026/piyush

¶18

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

¶19

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

Ajit Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Pratap Singh 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

Babu Lal and Others Vs the Board of Revenue and Others

Shalini Chaudhary, Secretary Executive Committee and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri Sardar Singh and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Muslim vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sharda Pandey and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Akshaj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others