Allahabad High Court
SHRI PRAKASH PAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners must approach the respondents with a separate representation for consideration of the later judgment, and the writ petition was disposed without further intervention.
Summary
Petitioners Shri Prakash Pal and three others filed a writ petition challenging an order of the State of U.P., contending that a later decision in Idrish Akhtar v. State of U.P. (2026:AHC:5230) was not placed before the respondents and that the new legal position now favours them. The petitioners argued that the respondents should be directed to consider the later judgment and possibly review the impugned order. The Court noted the petitioners' submission and observed that if the later judgment indeed favours the petitioners, they may approach the respondents with a separate representation. The Court did not issue any substantive order against the respondents but disposed of the writ petition, leaving the matter to be addressed through the respondents' internal review mechanism. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to seek relief by filing representations before the respondents.
Issues considered
- Whether the later judgment in Idrish Akhtar v. State of U.P. (2026:AHC:5230) is applicable to the petitioners' case.
- Whether the respondents should be directed by the Court to consider the later judgment and review the impugned order.
Subjects
- writ petition
- precedent applicability
- review of order
- administrative law
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6345 of 2026
Shri Prakash Pal And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Srivastava, Rahul Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri
Sastosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that position of law as
decided by this Court in Idrish Akhtar vs. State of U.P. and others,
2026:AHC:5230 was not placed before concerned respondent since it has
been passed subsequently. He further submits that position of law now
favours the case of petitioners.
3. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of that in case
aforesaid judgment favours case of petitioners, they have still an
opportunity to approach concerned respondent by way of filing separate
representations, who will look into the matter only to the extent that
whether above referred judgment is applicable to the case of petitioners or
not and if necessary impugned order may be reviewed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 7, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…