Disposed¶6

Chandani v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2026WRIC/473/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition; direction to decide representation/application dated 13.12.2024; reasoned order; twelve weeks timeline; opportunity of hearing; Sub Divisional Magistrate Tahsil-Sawaijpur District-Hardoi; Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh; inaction of authorities; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil-Sawaijpur, District-Hardoi to pass a reasoned order upon the petitioner's representation/application dated 13.12.2024 in accordance with law within twelve weeks, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ¶6

Chandani vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 473 of 2026

Chandani

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Janendra Kumar Kumar	Verma,	Neetu Patel, Vivek
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶11

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in deciding the representation/application dated 13.12.2024 filed by the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that raising her grievances the petitioner has filed the aforesaid representation/application before the respondent authority, however the same has not yet been decided.

¶13

Upon due consideration, we are of the view that the respondent authority should be directed to pass a reasoned order upon the representation/application of the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil-Sawaijpur, District-Hardoi is directed to pass a reasoned order upon the aforesaid representation/application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from date after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

January 30, 2026

¶17

akhilesh/-

¶18

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶19

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

Chandani v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandani v. State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue 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

Anoop Kumar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Cane Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Amar Jeet Singh and 18 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Adama India Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Gopal Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jeet Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Gelogy and Mining Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Shishir Pandey Security Agency Lko Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Atul Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Lko and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Foreign Affair and 3 Others