Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARIversusCOMMANDANT GENERAL OF HOME GUARDS STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal.
Summary
Petitioner Surendra Prasad Tiwari challenged the cancellation of his appointment/enlistment in the Home Guards by an order dated 18.08.2026, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order and remove his name from the nominal roll. The respondent State Home Guards filed a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the cancellation order. The Court examined the objection and held that the existence of an alternative remedy barred the petition. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appeal available under law.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- certiorari
- administrative law
- home guards
- appointment cancellation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15873 of 2026
Surendra Prasad Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commandant General Of Home Guards State Of
Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Pandey, Saurabh
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
order dated 18.08.2026, bearing Letter No. 663/अवै०स्था०/निष्कासन
पत्रा०/2026 (Annexure No.8), passed by the District Commandant, Home
Guards, Siddharth Nagar, whereby the petitioner's
appointment/enlistment has been cancelled and his name has been
directed to be removed from the Nominal Roll."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order
impugned.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy as available to him under law.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 30, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…