Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs Registrar General, High Court of Judicature Allahabad and Another

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to command Mathura judgeship to provide order dated 27th January, 2025 passed in O.S. No.26 of 1968.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is successor Sebait of temple Thakur Dau Ji Maharaj and since there is some case going on in Supreme Court, he wanted a copy of the order. The petitioner having failed to obtain the copy of the order for the reason that records were not available in the record room of judgeship, Mathura approached this Court by means of this present petition.

Initially, while this petition was entertained, a statement was made on behalf of the respondents that reconstruction of the file was in progress and accordingly, the matter was adjourned on 26th November, 2025 for the status/ report. On 27th January, 2026, learned counsel for the judgeship concerned prayed for further time but instead of submitting the

WRIC No. 39428 of 2025

2

report regarding reconstruction of record, Mr. Ashish Mishra submitted on 24th March, 2026 that he has filed counter affidavit in the matter.

In the counter affidavit stand was taken that digitization of old records of judgeship Mathura was already underway but record of this case was not available and as per the report of reconstructing officer, necessary disciplinary inquiry could also not be held in the matter against both the employees who had the duty to keep the records, because both have already stood retired.

This Court in the circumstances directed Mr. Mishra to place the details of the digitization records of the relevant year 1995 when this matter of suit was disposed of.

Today, Mr. Ashish Mishra, learned counsel has placed instructions before this Court, which are taken on record. Along with instructions the details of 1995 files that have been digitized have also been placed before this Court.

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that digitization details are relating to the cases of the year 1995 and this case could not find place in the list because it is of the year 1968 though disposed of in the year 1995. He submits that as per the details of 1968 files available in the record room, this file being O.A. No. 26 of 1968 is not mentioned which means records are not available in the record room. These details have also been placed before us.

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that digitization has been done of the records of the disposed cases between 1998 and 2012 and now digitization is taking place of the records prior to the year 1998.

Having perused the instructions and reports, in our considered view, since record of case being O.S. No.- 26 of 1968 is not available and petitioner was also not party in the said suit so as to get record reconstructed inasmuch as a statement has been made at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that original counsel of the case is also not traceable, the relief claimed now cannot be granted.

WRIC No. 39428 of 2025

3