Allahabad High Court
LAIQ AHMADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The orders withdrawing the third ACP were quashed as they were passed without notice or hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after the petitioner is allowed to file a representation.
Summary
The petitioner, Laiq Ahmad, challenged three orders dated 04.01.2024, 30.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 whereby the third ACP granted to him was withdrawn without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the orders violated the principles of natural justice. The Court examined the earlier decisions of the same Bench in Writ‑A No. 573 of 2026, Writ‑A No. 1583 of 2026 and Writ‑A No. 2269 of 2026, which had quashed similar orders for lack of notice. Relying on those precedents, the Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and set them aside. The matter was remitted to the respondents to allow the petitioner to file a detailed representation, treating the withdrawn orders as notices, and to decide the issue afresh within the stipulated time.
Issues considered
- Whether the withdrawal of the third ACP without prior notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Subjects
- natural justice
- due process
- writ petition
- quashing order
- representation
- notice
- hearing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6848 of 2026
Laiq Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Srivastava, Shweta
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.77)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Alok Kumar Srivastava. Counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Vivek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated
04.01.2024 and 30.12.2024 as well as the order dated 31.12.2024 passed
by the respondents no.3 and 4 respectively.
3. By the impugned orders, the third ACP granted to the petitioner was
withdrawn. However, the impugned orders have been passed without
prior notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 573
of 2026, Writ-A No. 1583 of 2026 and Writ-A number 2269 of 2026,
which have been passed by the Coordinate Bench in identical
situation and the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was
remitted back to the authority concerned to pass fresh order with
permission to the petitioner to file the detailed representation treating the
impugned orders as notices.
5. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of while
setting aside the impugned orders whereby the recovery has been initiated
against the petitioner pursuant to denial of the third ACP to the petitioner.
WRIA No. 6848 of 2026
2
The matter is remitted back to the respondents to decide the issue afresh
after receiving the fresh representation/reply of the petitioners while
treating the impugned orders as notices to the petitioners. The said
representations shall be submitted by the petitioners within a period of
three weeks from today and the respondents shall take fresh decision in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…