Dismissed¶18

Rakesh Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIC/17517/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition dismissed as not pressed; mandamus; compensation; representation dated 18.1.2026; questionnaire of year 2002; maintainability objection; vague and evasive pleadings; stale and belated claim; inordinate delay and laches; Syed Maqbool Ali (2011) 4 SCR 238; Dalip Singh Writ-C No. 12698 of 2025; State of U.P.; Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - C No. 17517 of 2026; Mahesh Chandra Tripathi; Kunal Ravi Singh; May 5, 2026

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed, pursuant to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, made when confronted with the State's maintainability objection; no adjudication on merits, delay/laches, or the compensation claim was rendered. ¶18

Rakesh Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 17517 of 2026

¶3

Rakesh Das And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	:	Anup Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 21

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶10

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take prompt action on the representation of petitioners' dated 18.1.2026 and pay compensation to the petitioners forthwith.

¶11

ii) issue /or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶12

iii) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."

¶13

At the outset, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that the same has been preferred on vague and evasive pleadings, merely on the basis of a questionnaire of the year 2002. He submits that a stale and belated claim cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶14

WRIC No. 17517 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Apex Court in Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. and Another , (2011) 4 SCR 238, as well as the judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 12698 of 2025 ( Dalip Singh and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others ) . It is, thus, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.

¶17

Confronted with the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶19

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

¶20

May 5, 2026 NLY

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Das and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Akhilesh Pandey vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Green Avenue Buildtech Private Limited and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babita Agarwal vs State of U.P. & 2 Others

Rani and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Green Avenue Buildtech Private Limited and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others