Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIC/3059/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Gram Pradhan; show cause notice — service and format objections; adequate opportunity / due process; notice No. 4062 dated 05.02.2026; BDO letter dated 24.02.2026 to DPRO; Annexure No. 5 reply admitting receipt on 20.02.2026; written instructions of Additional Chief Standing Counsel; interim relief refused; counter affidavit within two weeks; Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP, 2010 SCC OnLine Allahabad 2702; Department of Panchayati Raj, U.P.; Writ-C 3059 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.; April 17, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted at this stage: interim relief declined. Counter affidavit directed to be filed within two weeks with advance copy to petitioner's counsel; matter listed after two weeks. ¶¶19

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted at this stage: interim relief declined. Counter affidavit directed to be filed within two weeks with advance copy to petitioner's counsel; matter listed after two weeks.

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 was passed behind the petitioner's back and without following due process of law, the show cause notice allegedly having been received by him only on 10.03.2026 with his reply submitted on 11th March, 2026. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

On the material in the written instructions, the Court recorded that show cause notice bearing No. 4062 dated 05.02.2026 was issued to the petitioner, and a letter dated 24.02.2026 written by the Block Development Officer to the DPRO indicated that the notice had been served on him.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

Application for interim relief declined: in light of the prima facie two grounds raised and the material furnished with the written instructions, the Court found it not a fit case for grant of any interim relief at this stage; a counter affidavit was directed to be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the petitioner's counsel, and the matter was listed after two weeks.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner's own reply to the show cause notice, available on record as Annexure No. 5, states that he had received the notice on 20.02.2026; accordingly, at the prima facie stage, the contention that no adequate opportunity was granted was not accepted.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-C No. 3059 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow; Jaspreet Singh, J.; order dated April 17, 2026) — Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 others. Petitioner challenged an order impugned dated 10.03.2026 on two grounds: (i) show cause notice allegedly received by him only on 10.03.2026 with reply submitted on 11th March, 2026, hence the entire exercise was done behind his back without due process; and (ii) the notice suffered from defect of form and format. On the written instructions of the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Court recorded that notice No. 4062 dated 05.02.2026 was issued, that service was indicated by a BDO letter dated 24.02.2026 to the DPRO, that instructions showed receipt on 23.02.2026, and that the petitioner's own reply (Annexure No. 5) admitted receipt on 20.02.2026. Counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP: 2010 SCC OnLine Allahabad 2702 (Gram Pradhan not entitled to object to notice format). Held: not a fit case for grant of any interim relief at this stage; counter affidavit within two weeks with advance copy; listed after two weeks.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3059 of 2026

Narendra Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

ancaya aj o. n	ers	.....Resp	ondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shivendra S Singh Singh, Bhavesh Tripathi	Rathore, Chandel,	Apoorva Utkarsh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has provided a copy of the written instructions which are taken on record.

¶11

The two grounds have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner (i) that he has not been received a show cause notice rather he had received it only on the 10.03.2026 and submitted his reply on 11th March, 2026 and prior thereto the order impugned was passed on 10.03.2026, thus, the entire exercise has been done behind the back and without following the due process of law.

¶12

As per the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has provided a copy of the written instructions for perusal of the Court, wherein it has clearly been indicated that the notice was issued to the petitioner which was duly received by him on 23.02.2026.

¶13

This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, from the record which is part of the written instructions indicate that the notice bearing No. 4062 dated 05.02.2026 and addressed to the petitioner was issued and by means of a letter dated 24.02.2026 which is written by the Block Development Officer to the DPRO indicating that the notice has been served on the petitioner.

¶14

WRIC No. 3059 of 2026

¶15

¶16

It has further been pointed out that even in the reply submitted by the petitioner, a copy of which available on record as Annexure No. 5, it would indicate that he himself states that he had received the said show cause notice on 20.02.2026. It is urged that once the notice was already received and he took his time to file his response on 10.03.2026, he cannot now turn around to say that no adequate opportunity was granted, coupled with the fact that if the petitioner so wanted, he could have file his reply.

¶17

(ii) The other submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice is not in accordance with law and suffers from defect of form and format.

¶18

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in Vivekanand Yadav Vs. State of UP: 2010 SCC OnLine Allahabad 2702 wherein it has been held that the Gram Pradhan is not entitled to raise any objection regarding the notice not being in proper format.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid, let a counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, as far as the application for interim relief is concerned, this Court does not find that in light of the aforesaid prima facie two grounds raised and the material furnished with the written instructions, it is a fit case for grant of any interim relief at this stage.

¶20

List after two weeks.

¶21

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶22

April 17, 2026

¶23

Asheesh

¶24

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

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Momin Ansar Welfare Association Thru. Director Incharge Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Skill Development Entrepreneurship New Delhi

Ram Aasre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Omaxe Residency I, Resident Welfare Association Thru.Secy. Himanshu Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Awas Evam Shahari Niyojana Anubhag Lko. and 5 Others

Pramod Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Tarkeshwar Thakur vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy, Home Up Lko. and Another

Jhanvi Singh vs Shambhu Narayan Thru. Trustee Shantanu Singh and 3 Others