Disposed¶17

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagr Vikas Vibhag Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2026WRIC/1752/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pending contractor bills payment; Nagar Palika Biswan, District Sitapur; works on oral instruction; bills totalling Rs. 65,042/- not cleared; countersignature by Officer In-charge (Local Bodies)/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Sitapur; letter dated 31.07.2025 to District Magistrate, Sitapur; Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad; Standing Counsel to take instructions; listed 10.03.2026; interim order in writ petition (civil).

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to the learned Standing Counsel to take instructions from the concerned authority regarding the pendency of the petitioner's bills and their countersignature; matter listed for further hearing on 10.03.2026. ¶17

Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagr Vikas Vibhag Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1752 of 2026

Sachin Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagr Vikas Vibhag Lko And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyamendra Singh, Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. , Jageshwari Prasad Mathur

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J .

¶11

1. Heard Sri Shyamendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri J.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶12

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has conducted some works of repairing and paintings several latrines under the Nagar Palika, Biswan, District- Sitapur, on their oral instruction. It is further submitted that works granted to the petitioner have been completed and various bills totaling to an amount of Rs. 65,042/- have been submitted by the petitioner, which have not been cleared till date. It is further submitted that on the representation of the petitioner, opposite party no. 3 has informed the petitioner that with regard to the outstanding bills, they have already informed the District Magistrate, Sitapur by way of letter dated 31.07.2025, stating therein that the bills of the petitioner have not been processed only on account of the same having not been countersigned by the Officer In-charge (Local Bodies)/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Sitapur.

¶13

3. In the aforesaid circumstances, let the learned Standing Counsel

¶14

WRIC No. 1752 of 2026

¶15

¶16

take instruction from the concerned authority, as to the reason for pendency of the bills and as to whether the bill have been countersigned as stated in the letter dated 31.07.2025, issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur.

¶17

4. List on 10.03.2026.

¶18

( Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶19

February 19, 2026 Anuj Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagr Vikas Vibhag Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagr Vikas Vibhag Lko and 4 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

Manjeet Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Girja Sharma and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Lko. and 5 Others

Chief Secy. State of U.P Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. and Others

Satya Narayan Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Prithvi Agro Farm Producer Co. Thru. Proprietor Ragini Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Territory Manager, Retail Territory, Gonda vs Anoop Kumar Modi