Allahabad High Court
DHRUVRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the District Magistrate, without deciding the merits of the reimbursement claim.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhruvram, filed a writ petition seeking reimbursement of medical bills, alleging that his representations to the authorities had not been acted upon despite a considerable lapse of time. The petition was heard ex parte, as no response was obtained from the respondents, the State of U.P. and the District Magistrate, Jhansi. The Court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order and earlier submissions. The Court further directed that the District Magistrate forward the representation to the concerned authority, which must decide the matter within two months in accordance with law. The order expressly states that the Court has not examined the merits of the reimbursement claim and that the respondents will be considered independently under the law.
Issues considered
- What procedural steps are required when a writ petition for reimbursement of medical expenses is filed ex parte?
- Whether the Court can dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage without adjudicating the merits.
Subjects
- writ petition
- medical reimbursement
- ex parte
- admission stage disposal
- administrative law
- representation
- District Magistrate
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5845 of 2026
Dhruvram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent-State.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of
reimbursement of medical bills, the same were submitted before the
authorities from time to time and though a considerable time has lapsed
but till date no decision has been taken in the matter.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh
representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2-
District Magistrate, Jhansi along-with certified copy of this order and
photo-copy of the earlier representations within a period of three weeks
from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 himself
or forward the same to the authority concerned but in both conditions the
decision will be taken in accordance with law within a further period of
two months.
5. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of
finally.
6. Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without
seeking any response from the respondents, thus passing of the order
today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into
WRIA No. 5845 of 2026
2
the merits of the matter and the second respondent shall accord
independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the
mandate of law holding the field.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
April 23, 2026
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…