Disposed¶21

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayatiraj Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2026WRIC/3697/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 3697 of 2026, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (Jaspreet Singh, J., 17.04.2026): stay of surcharge recovery during pendency of appeal under Rule 259 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947; direction to appellate authority (respondent no.2) to decide appeal on next fixed date 13.05.2026 or within four weeks; recovery stayed for four weeks or till appeal decision; petition disposed of without counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the appeal under Rule 259 on the next date fixed (13.05.2026) or, in any case, within four weeks thereafter; recovery against the petitioner stayed for four weeks or till the decision of the appeal. ¶21

Santosh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayatiraj Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3697 of 2026

Santosh Kumar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayatiraj Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dinesh	Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court with limited prayer that he had preferred an appeal under Rule 259 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 against the order dated 30.12.2025. It is urged that the said appeal was preferred within time wherein the next date fixed is 13.05.2026.

¶13

It is further urged that in terms of the aforesaid Rule 259 more specifically its proviso, which provides that in case, if the appeal has been filed then all proceedings for recovery of surcharge from the person concerned shall remain stayed till the appeal is finally decided.

¶14

In this regard, it is urged that despite the appeal having been admitted and the next date as 13.05.2026 has been fixed, yet the State Authorities are attempting to recover the amount which is under challenge in the appeal.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid submissions and also noticing the fact that the appeal is already pending on 13.05.2026, this Court does not deem appropriate to keep the writ petition pending or call for a counter affidavit from the State as in light of the provision it is clear that till the decision of the appeal, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶16

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice can be made by directing the respondent no.2 who is seized of the appeal preferred by the petitioner to decide on the next date fixed. In case, if the same cannot be decided then in any case within four

¶17

WRIC No. 3697 of 2026

¶18

¶19

weeks thereafter.

¶20

For a period of four weeks or till the decision of the appeal, the recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶21

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶22

April 17, 2026 Harshita

¶23

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶24

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

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayatiraj Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayatiraj 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitra Sen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Firoj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sachin Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 Others

Raghupati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Nashim-Ul-Haq and 2 Others vs Meraj-Ud-Din and 5 Others