Allahabad High Court
DEENA NATH MISHRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed because the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order.
Summary
The petitioners, Deena Nath Mishra and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a certiorari to quash an order dated 26 July 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) in Appeal No. 991 of 2024 (Mehilal v. Deenath) under Section 38(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petition alleged that the order was illegal and sought its setting aside. The State’s standing counsel raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners possessed an alternative remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order. The learned judge held that because an alternative statutory remedy existed, the writ petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue the revision remedy available under law. No substantive merits of the order were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have a statutory alternative remedy of filing a revision against the order, thereby precluding the writ petition.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38(4)
Subjects
- certiorari
- revision
- alternative remedy
- U.P. Revenue Code
- writ petition
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16436 of 2026
Deena Nath Mishra And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 13 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : U.C. Chaturvedi, Vishnu Narayan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for State-
respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
impugned order dated 26.07.2025 passed by Respondent no.2/Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur in
Appeal No. 991 of 2024 Computerized Case No. C202416000000991
(Mehilal Vs. Deenath and other) U/s 38(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
(Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition)."
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing revision against the order
impugned.
4. Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
avail the remedy as available to them under law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioners after retaining photo copy of the same.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…