Disposed¶17

Ganesh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2026WRIC/1685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim order, Allahabad High Court, Prakash Padia J.; fishery lease auction of pond at Gata No.1091, Maharajganj; respondent no.6 Rambhawati wife of Shiv Shankar; ten-year lease on Rs.40,000/- deposit; approval by Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 30.09.2025; Minister's letter dated 12.07.2025; directions for service on District Magistrate and respondent no.6; personal affidavits by respondents 2, 3 and 6 by 04.02.2026; listed as fresh 04.02.2026; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

Interim procedural directions only: service of the writ petition and the day's order on respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Maharajganj) and respondent no.6; respondents 2, 3 and 6 to file personal affidavits by 04.02.2026; matter listed as fresh on 04.02.2026. No relief on merits granted or refused at this stage. ¶17

Ganesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1685 of 2026

Ganesh And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

¶12

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that auction of fishery lease of pond situated at Gata No.1091 was made in favour of the respondent no.6-Rambhawati wife of Shiv Shankar without following the procedure prescribed in law. It is further argued that pond in question was alloted after depositing a sum of Rs.40,000/- only in favour of the respondent no.6 for a period of ten years. It is further argued that procedure for auction notice, which is prescribed in law was not followed by the authorities and thereafter wholly illegally approval was also granted by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate on 30.09.2025. The petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid only in the month of January, 2026 and thereafter with great difficulty they obtained necessary papers and documents and immediately thereafter they filed present writ petition. It is further argued that entire proceedings were finalised in favour of the respondent no.6 only in view of the letter dated 12.07.2025 written by Minister of the State Government.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to provide photo-copy of the present writ petition along-with copy of the order passed today to the respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Maharajganj by 28.01.2026. The respondent no.2 is directed to provide copy of the present writ petition as well order passed today to the

¶14

WRIC No. 1685 of 2026

¶15

¶16

respondent no.6 by 30.01.2026, the respondent nos.2, 3 as well 6 are granted time till 04.02.2026 to file personal affidavit.

¶17