Disposed¶15

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2026WRIC/14866/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability/signing of writ petitions by institutional litigants; authorization letter versus panel counsel engagement; U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ghaziabad; Executive Engineer authorization; advocate not on panel; Additional Chief Standing Counsel authorized to receive notice; Allahabad High Court interim directions; matter adjourned/listed fresh on 22.04.2026; connected matters Writ C Nos. 14600 of 2026 and 14581 of 2026; Yamuna Pollution Control Unit v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: the matter was ordered to be placed through Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, to the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam the same day for necessary instructions, and to be put up as fresh on 22.04.2026; no final relief decided. ¶15

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit vs State of U.P. and 12 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the practice of instituting a writ petition in the High Court merely on the basis of an authorization letter issued by the Executive Engineer, without engagement of panel counsel, is acceptable.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court prima facie does not appreciate the practice of preferring a writ petition in the High Court merely on the basis of an authorization letter given by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-Ist, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ghaziabad, particularly where the instructing advocate is not a panel counsel; no final ruling was made on the point and the matter was directed to be listed afresh.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the matter be placed through Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, to the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam the same day for necessary instructions, noting that similar matters, Writ C Nos. 14600 of 2026 and 14581 of 2026, were likely to be taken up the following day.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh, JJ.), Writ-C No. 14866 of 2026, Yamuna Pollution Control Unit v. State of U.P. and 12 others, order dated April 21, 2026: The Court, prima facie, expressed disapproval of the practice of instituting a writ petition merely on an authorization letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-Ist, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ghaziabad, where the instructing advocate (Sri Virendra Singh Tomar) is not a panel counsel and had fairly admitted the petition was filed only on the basis of the authorization. The Court noted that U.P. Jal Nigam has various panel lawyers and that Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, is authorized to receive notice on its behalf. The matter was directed to be placed through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam the same day for necessary instructions, it being observed that similar matters (Writ C Nos. 14600 of 2026 and 14581 of 2026) were likely to be taken up the next day. Matter put up fresh on 22.04.2026. Interim order only; no final adjudication on merits; no statute or precedent cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14866 of 2026

¶3

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Qamrul Islam Siddiqui, Virendra Singh Tomar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 21

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Virendra Singh Tomar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been preferred on an authorization given by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-Ist, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ghaziabad to Sri Virendra Singh Tomar, Advocate, who has instituted the instant proceeding. On a query being asked by the Court, it has been informed that Mr. Tomar is not a panel counsel. He has fairly admitted that the petition was filed only on the basis of authorization alone.

¶9

We, prima facie, do not appreciate such practice in the High Court wherein merely on the basis of an authorization letter given by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-Ist, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ghaziabad, the instant writ petition is preferred.

¶10

It is informed to the Court that U.P. Jal Nigam is having various panel lawyers and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is also authorized to receive notice on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam.

¶11

Under the circumstances, let this matter be placed through Sri Suresh

¶12

WRIC No. 14866 of 2026

¶13

¶14

Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam today itself for necessary instructions in the matter as similar matters i.e. Writ C Nos.14600 of 2026 and 14581 of 2026 are likely to be taken up tomorrow.

¶15

Put up this matter as fresh on 22.04.2026.

¶16

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶17

April 21, 2026

¶18

Sumit S

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit v. State of U.P. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahesh Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Yamuna Pollution Control Unit vs State of U.P. and 45 Others

Prem Kumar Singh vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar and 3 Other

M/S Arora Rcc Works Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Vs State of U.P. and 16 Others