Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KAZIM HASANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is disposed of, but the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition with proper particulars upon payment of the prescribed cost.

Summary

The petitioner, Kazim Hasan, filed a writ petition (Writ‑A No. 6365 of 2026) challenging a decision of the State of U.P. The petition was filed despite an earlier order dated 05‑02‑2026 that had already rejected the petitioner’s claim, and the petitioner had not appealed that order. The Court noted the procedural defect and the poor drafting of the petition. Nonetheless, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition with better particulars, subject to a cost of Rs. 500 to be deposited. The fresh petition will be entertained only after payment of the cost. The petition was therefore disposed of with liberty to re‑file.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate course of action when a writ petition is filed after an earlier order rejecting the claim, without any challenge to that order?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • procedural defect
  • fresh petition
  • cost order
  • High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             WRIT - A No. - 6365 of 2026

                                    Kazim Hasan
                                                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                        Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 32
                                                HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

                                    1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saud Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri

                                    Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.


                                    2. It is very strange that petitioner’s claim has already been rejected vide

                                    order dated 05.02.2026 and despite a copy of same is annexed alongwith

                                    this writ petition, still it has not been challenged. Therefore, it is an

                                    example of poor drafting.


                                    3. However, still considering the prayer of learned counsel for petitioner,

                                    the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh with

                                    better particulars with cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in the Bank

                                    account of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.


                                    4. Registry will accept fresh petition only after receipt of payment of cost.


                                                                                 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.