Disposed¶22

Ram Ratan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIC/2320/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna; date of birth discrepancy Parivar Register vs Aadhaar Card; postmortem report; death certificate; mandamus to decide pending application; fresh consideration; inquiry into age of deceased; Article 226; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 2320 of 2026; disposed of May 4, 2026; Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed/set aside; authorities directed to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh on the available documents and permitted to conduct an inquiry into the age of the deceased in accordance with law. ¶22

Ram Ratan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2320 of 2026

Ram Ratan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jitendra Kumar, Ravi Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶11

1 . Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial relief(s):-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.2 to take the decision as early as possible to the application filed by the petitioner under the Scheme Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojna, which is still pending since 22.04.2025 before the opposite party no.2."

¶14

3. Upon perusal of the documents, it appears that the application of the petitioner filed under the Scheme mentions the date of birth of the deceased (son of the petitioner) as 18.02.2006 (as per the Parivar Register). However, the petitioner has also submitted an Aadhaar Card to show his residential address, in which the date of birth is recorded as 18.02.2011. The other documents, including the postmortem report and death certificate, have been issued on the basis of the Aadhaar Card and, accordingly, show the date of birth of petitioner as 18.02.2011.

¶15

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Aadhaar Card itself was prepared on the basis of the 'Parivar Register' and the mistake that has been committed, is on the part of the authorities who have issued the Aadhar Card by mentioning wrong date of birth of the deceased son. He further

¶16

WRIC No. 2320 of 2026

¶17

¶18

submits that the petitioner, being an illiterate person, did not realize that the date of birth of the deceased-son had been incorrectly recorded in the said Aadhaar Card. Thus, it has been submitted that an error committed on the part of the authority in mentioning wrong date of birth on the Aadhar Card has perpetuated further to the death certificate, postmortem report, etc.

¶19

5. In view of the above, it is argued that since the petitioner was above 18 years of age, he should not be deprived of the benefit of the said Scheme.

¶20

6. In light of the documents produced and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we quash/set aside the impugned order provided by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State and direct the authorities to once again consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the available documents.

¶21

7 . The authorities may conduct an inquiry with regard to the age of the deceased in accordance with law.

¶22

8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

May 4, 2026 Praveen

¶24

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Ratan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ratan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 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

Gurdit Singh and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Cane Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Abhimanyu Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Distt. Magistrate Distt. Sultanpur and 3 Others

Vikas Singh Sengar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Vishal Kumar Thru. His Power of Attorney Holder Dikshant vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 6 Others

Sant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Indian Sanitation Ward Boy and Horticulture Constractor Thru. Auth. Sig. Manwendra Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tourism U.P. Lko. and 3 Others