Allahabad High Court
ADITYA PRASAD SONKARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to issue a mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, with the respondent required to decide it within six weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Prasad Sonkar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of U.P. and other respondents to decide his representations dated 10 October 2025 and 23 March 2026 within a reasonable time. He alleged that despite multiple representations, the authorities had not taken any decision. The respondents argued that the petitioner could file a fresh representation before respondent No.1, which would then be considered promptly. The Court examined whether it could compel the administration to decide the pending representations and concluded that it would not intervene on the merits. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation within two weeks and directing the respondent to decide it within six weeks of the order. The judgment makes clear that no substantive merits of the original representations were adjudicated.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s pending representations within a stipulated period
- Whether the petitioner must first file a fresh representation before respondent No.1 before the Court can intervene
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- administrative delay
- representation
- High Court of Allahabad
- petition disposed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16279 of 2026
Aditya Prasad Sonkar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhay Mishra, Prateek Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents, Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3.
2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.4.2026, Sri Archit
Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has produced the
instruction dated 2.5.2026, which is taken on record.
3. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 10.10.2025 &
23.3.2026 in a fair, just and reasoned manner within stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for redressal of his
grievance, he has filed several representations before the respondent-
authorities, but till date same has not been decided. He next submitted that a
suitable direction may be issued to respondent authorities to decide the
representation of the petitioner within stipulated period.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that for redressal of grievance of
petitioner, he may file fresh representation before the respondent no. 1. In
case any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and
decided at the earliest.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is
WRIC No. 16279 of 2026
2
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file fresh representation before the
respondent no.1 within two weeks from today. In case any such
representation is filed before the respondent no.1, he shall consider and
decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
6. It is made clear that Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is
upon the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner after
considering the relevant Acts, Rules, Government Orders, Judicial
pronouncement made by the Court as well as facts of the case.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…